Learn C/C++ first, everything else is easy to learn after that. Learning C/C++ well will get you through most situations well, at least in mathematics.
The only place I see Cobol used is with Cobol conversions (i.e., from WANG) from old accounting systems. If I was going to start a project today, I would probably not start with Cobol. It is good to know a variety of languages if you are going to use those languages. I argue that you cannot really know a language until you have used it, for a while, in the real world. I would rather be an excellent C/C++ or Java programmer rather then a so-so programmer with many different languages. It is easier for a good programmer to learn a new language. Fortran definitely has a place here in the math department, however, I believe this is in part due to a lack of C/C++ ability, at least in most cases. People use what they learn, but it would be better, IMO, to learn what is best for the job. "IMHO consider Python." I second that. Chris... On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 3:32 PM, John R. Hogerhuis <jho...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:04 PM, David Kaiser <dkai...@cdk.com> wrote: > >> There are more people using each of COBOL, Logo, Ada, and Fortran than >> there are using Smalltalk. Says something about practicality and >> suitability for a purpose. Although it begs the question that if COBOL >> is suited for business, and Fortran for science, what was Logo >> well-suited for? :) (I think LOGO is similar to and was an influence >> on Smalltalk) >> > > Another possibility: COBOL and Fortran are important only because of > libraries and massive amounts of legacy code based on them. > > They are really pretty abysmal languages for anything by modern > standards, but they are still important for practical reasons. > > As a programmer you learn very quickly that massive cleanups and > rewrites are a great way to derail a project or functioning system. > It's usually better to use or fix what you've got. > >> >> I also think that if you are truly a good professional C programmer, you >> can more easily adapt to other languages. It's not also so in reverse, >> we've tried to take people that were good at Visual Basic or other >> interpreted languages and have them learn C, and it usually doesn't >> work so well. Perhaps it has to do with which language you learn first? >> > > My take is that it depends on the language. Being a good C programmer > requires understanding of lower level concepts and that prepares you > for programming challenges in general (assembly language is an even > better way to learn this... or examining code generated by a C > compiler). > > Also many languages base their syntax on C so that gives you a little > head start (and maybe a false sense of security... JavaScript may look > like C but C it ain't). > > But I would say that C is very poor preparation for functional and > declarative languages like Scheme and XSLT, respectively. You might > actually be better off in these languages learning them before C. > > My first language was Microsoft Extended Color BASIC imprinted at a > tender age. I'm not sure how badly that screwed me up initially, but > Recovery Is Possible. > > -- John. > _______________________________________________ > LinuxUsers mailing list > LinuxUsers@socallinux.org > http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers > -- "As we open our newspapers or watch our television screens, we seem to be continually assaulted by the fruits of Mankind's stupidity." -Roger Penrose _______________________________________________ LinuxUsers mailing list LinuxUsers@socallinux.org http://socallinux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxusers
