It's always good to know C if you ever need to write an Apache module!

Juan Madrigal

Web Developer
University of Miami
Richter Library

On Jul 30, 2011, at 5:39 AM, "Luciano Ramalho" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 4:18 PM, Genny Engel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> C++ might be a better choice if you want to start off with a grounding in object-oriented programming.  Or maybe Java.  I'm about to start the C++ course at the local junior college.  Which reminds me to mention, it probably doesn't matter which programming course you take right now -- if you then go through life taking more programming classes like I do!
> 
> Here are a few quotes from computer science notables about C++:
> 
> "I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not
> have C++ in mind" (Alan Kay)
> "There are only two things wrong with C++: The initial concept and the
> implementation" (Bertrand Meyer)
> "Whenever the C++ language designers had two competing ideas as to how
> they should solve some problem, they said, 'OK, we'll do them both'.
> So the language is too baroque for my taste" (Donald E Knuth)
> 
> To really learn OOP, Ruby, Java, Python and particularly Smalltalk are
> much better choices, IMHO. OK, you won't find much practical use for
> Smalltalk, but neither for C++ in this day and age (not in a library
> setting, anyway). And learning C then Smalltalk is a great path to
> Objective-C, the main language used to program iPhones and iPads.
> 
> Putting aside the OOP issue, learning C is totally worthwhile as a
> grounding for any other language. Its what C++ adds to C that is not
> worth the trouble, as there are better alternatives.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Luciano Ramalho
> programador repentista || stand-up programmer
> Twitter: @luciano