Should I Learn Ruby as a First Language?

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by MRH, May 28, 2008.

  1. MRH

    MRH Guest

    Hello Group,

    I realize this question has been previously asked in different boards,
    however, I believe that it is worth asking here owing to the level of
    expertise present.

    I am a beginner in programming. I have read some fundamental theory
    material and mucked around a bit, and now want to move into actually
    learning programming and my first language.

    Throughout my research into this question, I have seen that the more
    credible sources recommend either Python or Ruby, and I am personally
    leaning quite heavily toward Ruby, yet I would very much like to read
    the thoughts of the group on this question.

    Thanking everyone beforehand,

    Maurice
     
    MRH, May 28, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MRH

    Tobias Weber Guest

    In article
    <>,
    MRH <> wrote:

    > however, I believe that it is worth asking here owing to the level of
    > expertise present.


    That is one way to avoid being sent to Google ;)

    > learning programming and my first language.


    I learned by doing, in perl, and think it worked well

    > credible sources recommend either Python or Ruby, and I am personally
    > leaning quite heavily toward Ruby, yet I would very much like to read


    You'll have to learn more than one language anyway, so why not just
    start with one and try the other in 2 weeks time? They're not that hard.

    Educationally Python might make more sense since it has less syntax (no
    blocks)

    But my real advice is to find a problem you really care about, than look
    which language has the best library for it, and go with that. You won't
    learn anything from example code in books.

    (I learned/wrestled PHP just to use an ID3 tag library. A while ago I
    ported all my code to ruby and use pipes to communicate with a very
    small PHP script wrapping getID3)

    --
    Tobias Weber
     
    Tobias Weber, May 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Wednesday 28 May 2008 07:45:00 MRH wrote:
    > Throughout my research into this question, I have seen that the more
    > credible sources recommend either Python or Ruby, and I am personally
    > leaning quite heavily toward Ruby, yet I would very much like to read
    > the thoughts of the group on this question.


    Depends what you want to do, and how far you want to go.

    For a first language, either Python or Ruby are fine. Python has stricter
    syntax, but I suspect Ruby has stricter concepts (of OO, etc). I find Ruby
    easier to read, but that's an opinion.

    If you want to get a good concept of programming in general, you should learn
    (and develop at least some small apps in) a variety of languages -- and a
    variety of very different languages.

    So, at least one language low-level enough not to do garbage collection (C,
    ASM, etc), at least one high-level "scripting" language (Ruby, Python, Perl,
    JavaScript), at least one purely functional language (Haskell), and I'll
    throw in LISP and either Erlang or Smalltalk.

    I'm not sure it matters what order you do this in -- pick whichever has the
    best absolute beginner books. I would suggest a tight feedback loop for
    learning, though -- look for interactive interpreter shells (Python, IRB),
    and avoid compilers (C, C++, Java).

    And others will have other lists.

    If you don't have that kind of attention span, or if you're looking to learn
    what it takes to get stuff done now, that depends very much on what you want
    to do. For example, if you're planning to do game development, you're
    probably going to have to know C++, and definitely at least C. If you're just
    looking to automate some high-level tasks on Unix, learn Bash. And so on.
     
    David Masover, May 28, 2008
    #3
  4. MRH

    Mark Wilden Guest

    On May 28, 2008, at 6:01 AM, Tobias Weber wrote:

    > But my real advice is to find a problem you really care about, than
    > look
    > which language has the best library for it, and go with that. You
    > won't
    > learn anything from example code in books.


    That is such good advice. Programming and cooking are two areas in
    which you can both learn and benefit from the result.

    ///ark
     
    Mark Wilden, May 28, 2008
    #4
  5. MRH

    Dave Bass Guest

    MRH wrote:
    > I am a beginner in programming. I have read some fundamental theory
    > material and mucked around a bit, and now want to move into actually
    > learning programming and my first language.


    Once upon a time I used to teach C as a first programming language. In
    some ways it's good, as it's close to the hardware (bits and bytes,
    addresses and pointers etc) but in many other ways this can be a
    disadvantage, as you can't see the wood for the trees. However, it
    certainly makes you appreciate higher-level languages when you come
    across them later on!

    Java now seems to be the first language of choice for many universities,
    but I would have to disagree with that.

    Ruby is much nicer than Java and it will teach you plenty of OO
    concepts.

    However, there's no such thing as the "best" language, so you should
    concentrate on mastering one, then go on to your next.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Dave Bass, May 28, 2008
    #5
  6. On May 28, 7:43 am, MRH <> wrote:
    > Hello Group,
    >
    > I realize this question has been previously asked in different boards,
    > however, I believe that it is worth asking here owing to the level of
    > expertise present.
    >
    > I am a beginner in programming. I have read some fundamental theory
    > material and mucked around a bit, and now want to move into actually
    > learning programming and my first language.
    >
    > Throughout my research into this question, I have seen that the more
    > credible sources recommend either Python or Ruby, and I am personally
    > leaning quite heavily toward Ruby, yet I would very much like to read
    > the thoughts of the group on this question.
    >
    > Thanking everyone beforehand,
    >
    > Maurice


    Hi Maurice,

    I'm new to this as well. Here's a link to a resource that can maybe
    help you find/learn ruby info - (there are a lot of others up there if
    you just search) http://www.yoyobrain.com/cardboxes/preview/103

    I hope it helps! Let me know what you think about it too.

    Best,

    Elizabeth
     
    Elizabeth Barnwell, May 28, 2008
    #6
  7. On 22:04 Wed 28 May , David Masover wrote:
    > I'm not sure it matters what order you do this in -- pick whichever has the
    > best absolute beginner books. I would suggest a tight feedback loop for
    > learning, though -- look for interactive interpreter shells (Python, IRB),
    > and avoid compilers (C, C++, Java).


    Actually, TinyCC has a C interpreter that you can use to test code, so
    there isn't much need to compile when you are using it.

    I believe there is a Windows and a *nix version, so there shouldn't be a
    problem with platforms.
     
    forgottenwizard, May 28, 2008
    #7
  8. MRH

    Mike Kasick Guest

    On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:45:00PM +0900, MRH wrote:

    > Throughout my research into this question, I have seen that the more
    > credible sources recommend either Python or Ruby, and I am personally
    > leaning quite heavily toward Ruby, yet I would very much like to read the
    > thoughts of the group on this question.


    I usually lump beginner programmers into one of two categories, (i) those
    who want to become expert programmers for purposes of education,
    profession, or hobby, and (ii) those who are interested in learning how to
    program sufficiently enough to make work in their primary careers easier,
    but don't necessarilly have a specific interest in programming itself.

    If you're of the former category, I would say it doesn't really matter what
    lanaguage you learn first since you will inevitably learn multiple
    languages anyways. Remember that a master programmer is not someone who
    expertly understands the minutiae of any single language, but rather is
    someone who is proficient in many languages. This is largely due to the
    fact that all programming languages seek to achieve that same high-level
    goal--enable programmers to use a machine to perform computation--and yet
    each language achieves this goal in a different and nuanced way. It's
    the understanding of these nuances, and why they exist, that paints the
    overall picture.

    That said, there are a lot of languages out there that are complicated or
    even cumbersome because they attempt to be sufficiently general as to allow
    any "style" of programming without enforcing too strict of rules as to what
    code should look like. Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon is C++,
    and to a lesser extent Perl. I express caution in learning these languages
    as first languages, since, as a novice programmer you don't really have an
    intuition for what code should look like, and the language doesn't really
    help guide you in learning either.

    Ruby is guilty of a similar phenomenon which, in this context, goes by the
    name of "expressiveness". While Ruby is certainly my favorite language, I
    know that part of my appreciation for this expressiveness comes from over a
    decade of experience in other languages and being able to place Ruby in
    the context of this experience.

    In other words, I'm not really sure if Ruby is the best, or even a good
    language for beginners because I'm not sure how difficult it is to learn
    without the benefit of experience. On the other hand, plenty of people
    have learned Ruby as their first language and have gone on to recommend it
    to others, so it's certainly possible, and probably not a bad choice
    either.

    That said, keep in mind that Ruby is a bit unique compared to other popular
    languages. For example, the idiom of using internal iterators and blocks
    as looping constructions (e.g., Enumerable#each) is unlike the usual
    approach of using a for loop and/or external iterator as you would use in
    C, C++, Java, or Python. While I think Ruby's approach is better, it is
    not the norm in other languages. Another example is Ruby's idiom of
    automatic allocation and deallocation of resources by passing them to code
    blocks (e.g., File#open). In other languages, one typically has to
    explicitly deallocate the resource (close the file) and the code for
    writing this safely is not intuitive.

    This brings up another advantage/disadvantage of learning Ruby first: code
    safetyness. One example of this is the resource allocation/deallocation
    idiom I mentioned above that ensures that resources are always properly
    cleaned up when the program is finished with their use. Another is that
    most methods raise an exception upon encountering an error, forcing a
    program to abort is an unexpected error happens.

    Exceptions are good, and they're prominent in other languages (Java and
    Python) and behave, more or less in the same way. Unfortunately some
    popular languages implement exceptions (C++ and Perl) but don't use them
    universally in library functions, and other languages (C) don't implement
    them at all. In these languages, you must (or at least should) check
    return values of any function you call to make sure that the desired action
    performed successfully. Often times people forget to do this, and the
    result is code that continues on ignoring error conditions, usually blowing
    up somewhere else where it's difficult to debug.

    So, while I regard these features as advantages of Ruby, they are, in some
    sense a disadvantage when you attempt to learn a different language that
    doesn't take care of these issues for you, as you must be diligent in
    taking care of them yourself and it's not something you're used to.

    Anyways, the crux of my advice is this: Any language that you're
    enthralled by, and can't get enough of, is a good (first) language to
    learn. On the other hand, any language that you find bewildering,
    confusing, or just plain unfun to learn is probably not a good first
    language candidate. If you find youself becoming disinterested after
    spending a week or two learning whatever language you choose, skip it and
    move on to something else. It may take a while to find the language that
    fits, but trial and error is better than giving up on programming
    entirely--especially when the language that clicks with you is right around
    the corner.

    Briefly getting back to the other category of beginner programmers, those
    that are not particularly interested in programming itself but recognize
    that some proficiency is beneficial for getting their work done--if you're
    only going to learn one language and you're not sure which, both Python and
    Ruby are reasonable choices. The argument is that since you're only going
    to learn one language, you might as well learn one that's useful enough to
    enable you to accomplish a wide variety of tasks, and one that's popular
    enough that there are many libraries, tutorials, and resources available
    for helping you get the job done. Python might be a bit superior with
    regard to popularity, at least in the English speaking community. At one
    time Perl was much more so, but I wouldn't consider any beneift in greater
    popularity of Perl to be worth the pain of having to deal with it's
    obtuseness.
     
    Mike Kasick, May 28, 2008
    #8
  9. MRH

    Kyle Schmitt Guest

    Since nobody's posted it...
    http://xkcd.com/409/

    Ruby is an awesome language, highly abstracted from the hardware,
    incredibly flexible and fluid, and probably not a good first language
    just for those reasons alone.

    Learn C first.

    To really get programming, to understand what's going on, you need to
    go deep. All the way down to C (though some say assembler).

    C is the lingua franca of computers. It doesn't make things easy for
    you, it doesn't make things pretty, or necessarily intuitive, but it
    does bring you right down to the metal in the end.

    It isn't flexible, when you have to tell it to do something, you have
    to tell it exactly what to do, And C will do it, even if it's not a
    good idea, even if it crashes.
    You grab your own memory, and are responsible for putting it back.
    You make and move pointers to access the memory: if you point to the
    wrong place, you'll get the wrong data, corrupt your own program, and
    probably crash it.
    You've got to link your own binaries, and link them to the right libraries.

    And doing all that makes you a better programmer, makes you understand
    what really is going on behind the scenes. Not to mention makes you
    appreciate languages like ruby, perl, python and java so much more
    when you get to them :)

    I don't think you necessarily should program your first projects in C,
    but you should learn C as a first language, even if you don't use it
    for your first projects. Even if you never use it outside of studying
    it.

    --Kyle
     
    Kyle Schmitt, May 28, 2008
    #9
  10. Mike Kasick wrote:
    > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 09:45:00PM +0900, MRH wrote:
    >


    > I usually lump beginner programmers into one of two categories, (i)
    > those
    > who want to become expert programmers for purposes of education,
    > profession, or hobby, and (ii) those who are interested in learning how
    > to
    > program sufficiently enough to make work in their primary careers
    > easier,
    > but don't necessarilly have a specific interest in programming itself.
    >
    > If you're of the former category, I would say it doesn't really matter
    > what
    > lanaguage you learn first since you will inevitably learn multiple
    > languages anyways. Remember that a master programmer is not someone who
    > expertly understands the minutiae of any single language, but rather is
    > someone who is proficient in many languages. This is largely due to the
    > fact that all programming languages seek to achieve that same high-level
    > goal--enable programmers to use a machine to perform computation--and
    > yet
    > time Perl was much more so, but I wouldn't consider any beneift in
    > greater
    > popularity of Perl to be worth the pain of having to deal with it's
    > obtuseness.


    Excellent answer !
    Aplausos !!
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Rodrigo Bermejo, May 28, 2008
    #10
  11. MRH

    Mark Wilden Guest

    On May 28, 2008, at 11:36 AM, Kyle Schmitt wrote:

    > Learn C first.


    As someone who learned UCSD Pascal first, and then went on to
    assembler, then C, I disagree. :)

    You don't have to be able to overhaul an engine to ride on a train.
    You should always take the easiest way that fulfills your goals.

    I was a Classical Studies major at university. People would always
    say, "Oh, I wish I'd learned Latin!" Idiots. :) Yeah, learning Latin
    will help you learn French, etc. But if you want to learn French, you
    should just learn French.

    We only have a limited amount of time in our lives. Any time spent
    learning a bad language like C is time we can't spent learning
    something else - like how to write maintainable, well-tested code.

    Taken to its logical extreme, you should really know how to design
    digital circuits before you jump into C. Would it make you a better
    Ruby programmer? Absolutely! What would make you an even better Ruby
    programmer, however, is learning Smalltalk or Scheme or TDD or Rails.
    Limited time means you can't learn everything. Make sure what you
    learn is actually useful.

    Learning C means not learning something else.

    ///ark
     
    Mark Wilden, May 28, 2008
    #11
  12. MRH

    Eric I. Guest

    On May 28, 2:36 pm, Kyle Schmitt <> wrote:
    > Since nobody's posted it...http://xkcd.com/409/
    >
    > Ruby is an awesome language, highly abstracted from the hardware,
    > incredibly flexible and fluid, and probably not a good first language
    > just for those reasons alone.
    >
    > Learn C first.
    >
    > To really get programming, to understand what's going on, you need to
    > go deep.  All the way down to C (though some say assembler).
    >
    > C is the lingua franca of computers.  It doesn't make things easy for
    > you, it doesn't make things pretty, or necessarily intuitive, but it
    > does bring you right down to the metal in the end.
    >
    > It isn't flexible, when you have to tell it to do something, you have
    > to tell it exactly what to do, And C will do it, even if it's not a
    > good idea, even if it crashes.
    > You grab your own memory, and are responsible for putting it back.
    > You make and move pointers to access the memory: if you point to the
    > wrong place, you'll get the wrong data, corrupt your own program, and
    > probably crash it.
    > You've got to link your own binaries, and link them to the right libraries..
    >
    > And doing all that makes you a better programmer, makes you understand
    > what really is going on behind the scenes.  Not to mention makes you
    > appreciate languages like ruby, perl, python and java so much more
    > when you get to them :)
    >
    > I don't think you necessarily should program your first projects in C,
    > but you should learn C as a first language, even if you don't use it
    > for your first projects.  Even if you never use it outside of studying
    > it.


    I *strongly* disagree with this opinion. If the goal is to start
    closer to the hardware, then why isn't assembly language even better?
    It's like saying to learn sociology you first need to learn
    psychology, but before that neurology, preceded by neurochemistry, but
    only after biochemistry, which of course follows chemistry, but which
    can only come after physics....

    Just as there are useful concepts and abstractions within sociology, a
    high level programming language provides you with abstractions (loops,
    objects, exceptions, iterators, closures, etc.) that are useful in
    their own right. You do not have to learn what's happening behind the
    scenes first to understand or leverage these concepts.

    You can't learn everything at once. You have to learn things
    incrementally, and given human psychology, it tends to work best if
    along the way you are able to do useful and interesting things.

    Now does learning C or assembly language at some point make you a
    better programmer? Absolutely! But it doesn't have to be first, or
    even second or third. Why make learning unnecessarily painful when it
    can be coincidentally fun?

    Eric

    ====

    LearnRuby.com offers Rails & Ruby HANDS-ON public & ON-SITE
    workshops.
    Ruby Fundamentals Wkshp June 16-18 Ann Arbor, Mich.
    Ready for Rails Ruby Wkshp June 23-24 Ann Arbor, Mich.
    Ruby on Rails Wkshp June 25-27 Ann Arbor, Mich.
    Ruby Plus Rails Combo Wkshp June 23-27 Ann Arbor, Mich
    Please visit http://LearnRuby.com for all the details.
     
    Eric I., May 28, 2008
    #12
  13. On Wednesday 28 May 2008 13:36:30 Kyle Schmitt wrote:

    > Learn C first.
    >
    > To really get programming, to understand what's going on, you need to
    > go deep. All the way down to C (though some say assembler).


    And that's the point, really. Some say assembler. You say C. I say neither, or
    it depends.

    I would say, start with something like Ruby or Python. There's a minimum of
    busywork between you and what you actually want to make. It'll get you in,
    and get you hooked.

    It also means you'll have a solid grasp of a few core concepts before moving
    on to C. You won't spend the whole time learning what a variable is, or what
    a function is, because you'll already know how to program. Instead, you'll
    spend your time learning all that depth knowledge you're talking about -- how
    to allocate memory, what a pointer is, etc.

    But it's not really a closed debate, by any means. I started (barely) with
    QBASIC (multiple choice quizzes with if/then/else) -- didn't really learn to
    program until I got a good book on C++. So I pretty much did the opposite of
    what I'm advocating here.

    And I stand by, whichever has the best book. Once you know one language well,
    learning another is much easier -- it's those first baby steps that are
    difficult.
     
    David Masover, May 28, 2008
    #13
  14. MRH

    Bill Kelly Guest

    From: "Mark Wilden" <>
    >
    > We only have a limited amount of time in our lives. Any time spent
    > learning a bad language like C is time we can't spent learning
    > something else - like how to write maintainable, well-tested code.


    Uhhhhhhhh.... From matz, two days ago on ruby-core: [16910]

    From: "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <>
    To: <>
    Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:18 AM
    Subject: Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax
    >
    > [...] I program in C more than Ruby



    So... matz has implemented ruby in a "bad language" ?

    Personally I find it extremely useful to be fluent in the
    language that Ruby is written in. Ruby would be a lot less
    useful to me if I weren't able to write my own ruby
    extension modules. . . . Which requires a knowledge of C,
    if one is using Matz' ruby. (Obviously if I were using
    JRuby, knowledge of C wouldn't be anywhere near as relevant.)

    I'm not convinced someone should learn C *before* ruby,
    however I find C to be an extremely vaulable language to
    know.


    Regards,

    Bill
     
    Bill Kelly, May 28, 2008
    #14
  15. MRH

    Mark Wilden Guest

    On May 28, 2008, at 3:13 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:

    > From: "Yukihiro Matsumoto" <>
    > To: <>
    > Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 8:18 AM
    > Subject: Re: [PATCH] lambda with normal block syntax
    > >
    > > [...] I program in C more than Ruby


    If you're writing Ruby, as opposed to doing applications programming,
    that makes sense!

    > So... matz has implemented ruby in a "bad language" ?


    It's funny. I used to work at Sierra On-Line (a long time ago) where
    we used a home-grown OOP language to write adventure games. The guy
    who wrote the language was without doubt the smartest person I've ever
    worked with. But he actually had very little OOP experience, and I was
    able to teach him a thing or two about using his own language!

    All that's to say that "Matz uses C more than Ruby" doesn't really
    bear on which is the better language. However, I should have said that
    C is a "bad" language for applications, in the sense that Ruby is much
    better!

    > Personally I find it extremely useful to be fluent in the
    > language that Ruby is written in. Ruby would be a lot less
    > useful to me if I weren't able to write my own ruby extension
    > modules. . . . Which requires a knowledge of C,
    > if one is using Matz' ruby. (Obviously if I were using
    > JRuby, knowledge of C wouldn't be anywhere near as relevant.)


    That's great, but it doesn't apply to most people.

    > I'm not convinced someone should learn C *before* ruby,
    > however I find C to be an extremely vaulable language to know.


    As someone who's quoted in the GNU C FAQ, I probably have as great an
    appreciation of C as anyone. I just think its sell-by date has passed
    for most applications. On the other hand, I wouldn't write a device
    driver in Ruby.

    ///ark
     
    Mark Wilden, May 28, 2008
    #15
  16. MRH

    Tim Hunter Guest

    Bill Kelly wrote:
    > Personally I find it extremely useful to be fluent in the
    > language that Ruby is written in. Ruby would be a lot less
    > useful to me if I weren't able to write my own ruby extension modules. .
    > . . Which requires a knowledge of C,
    > if one is using Matz' ruby. (Obviously if I were using
    > JRuby, knowledge of C wouldn't be anywhere near as relevant.)
    >
    > I'm not convinced someone should learn C *before* ruby,
    > however I find C to be an extremely vaulable language to know.


    +1. I read this quote from somebody smart: "C is the atmosphere in which
    we live."

    Although I learned (and earned my living with) assembly language many
    years ago, I don't think it's particularly necessary to learn it now
    unless you're working in a very specialized area, like compilers,
    graphics drivers, etc. But C is still hugely popular and widely used and
    having it in your toolchest will be useful for many years to come.

    However, even though C is a small language (compared to Java or C++) I
    think it's harder to learn than Ruby, and learning it will be more
    frustrating since it takes so much more code to get results and it's so
    easy to make mistakes that are really, really hard to fix. I've been
    doing it for 25 years now and I still spend more of my time finding and
    fixing bugs than I do writing code.

    --
    RMagick: http://rmagick.rubyforge.org/
    RMagick 2: http://rmagick.rubyforge.org/rmagick2.html
     
    Tim Hunter, May 28, 2008
    #16
  17. MRH

    MRH Guest

    Tobias:

    Thank you for your reply.

    > I learned by doing, in perl, and think it worked well


    I agree, and plan on using that approach.

    > You'll have to learn more than one language anyway


    Quite true, and I plan on a few . . . I am just debating which one to
    try first . . .

    > Educationally Python might make more sense since it has less syntax (no
    > blocks)


    I will keep that in mind.

    > But my real advice is to find a problem you really care about, than look
    > which language has the best library for it, and go with that. You won't
    > learn anything from example code in books.


    Had also planned on this.

    Cheers,

    Maurice
     
    MRH, May 29, 2008
    #17
  18. MRH

    Dave Bass Guest

    Kyle Schmitt wrote:
    > Learn C first.
    >
    > To really get programming, to understand what's going on, you need to
    > go deep. All the way down to C (though some say assembler).
    >
    > C is the lingua franca of computers. It doesn't make things easy for
    > you, it doesn't make things pretty, or necessarily intuitive, but it
    > does bring you right down to the metal in the end.


    This is exactly why we chose C as the first language for electronic
    engineering and information systems engineering students. Previously the
    course had been given in Algol 68 (!), then Pascal, but it was decided
    that C would be a much better foundation, and useful in the real world
    too.

    C is very hard to learn. Almost everybody comes unstuck on pointers and
    memory allocation. But this trains your mind, and once you've learnt C,
    you realise what other languages are protecting you from, and how they
    work internally (since most are written in C, like Ruby).

    Recently some ex-students of mine contacted me via a social networking
    site to thank me, saying that C had been very valuable to them in their
    careers.

    If the OP wants a good foundation in programming, C will provide it. But
    Ruby would be gentler. :)

    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Dave Bass, May 29, 2008
    #18
  19. MRH

    MRH Guest

    Hi David,

    Thank you for your post.

    > Depends what you want to do, and how far you want to go.


    I want to program for myself, for clients, and contribute to FOSS
    projects, and take it all as far as I can.

    > For a first language, either Python or Ruby are fine. Python has stricter
    > syntax, but I suspect Ruby has stricter concepts (of OO, etc). I find Ruby
    > easier to read, but that's an opinion.


    Will keep this in mind.

    > If you want to get a good concept of programming in general, you should learn
    > (and develop at least some small apps in) a variety of languages -- and a
    > variety of very different languages.


    I agree . . . part of my research into the fundamentals has led me to
    decide to, as part of stage 2 - if you will - work my way through the
    (and I hope I don't sound like online bookstore spam with this)
    "Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming" book . . .

    > So, at least one language low-level enough not to do garbage collection (C,
    > ASM, etc), at least one high-level "scripting" language (Ruby, Python, Perl,
    > JavaScript), at least one purely functional language (Haskell), and I'll
    > throw in LISP and either Erlang or Smalltalk.


    Ah, this resonates with some of my preliminary conclusions . . .

    > I'm not sure it matters what order you do this in -- pick whichever has the
    > best absolute beginner books.


    I think that for me personally, the best approach is to go from higher
    level to lower level, and yes, one of the reasons I have been torn
    between Python and Ruby was that Python has (from what I have read)
    great beginner books, yet Ruby does as well . . .

    > I would suggest a tight feedback loop for
    > learning, though -- look for interactive interpreter shells (Python, IRB),
    > and avoid compilers (C, C++, Java).


    Will do.

    > If you don't have that kind of attention span, or if you're looking to learn
    > what it takes to get stuff done now, that depends very much on what you want
    > to do. For example, if you're planning to do game development, you're
    > probably going to have to know C++, and definitely at least C. If you're just
    > looking to automate some high-level tasks on Unix, learn Bash. And so on.


    I hear you, I am mostly interested in web applications, yet also want
    to explore desktop applications for Mac OS X . . . and the more I read
    about Lisp, the more interesting it becomes . . .

    Cheers,

    Maurice
     
    MRH, May 29, 2008
    #19
  20. MRH

    MRH Guest


    > That is such good advice. Programming and cooking are two areas in
    > which you can both learn and benefit from the result.


    I actually cook a bit :)
     
    MRH, May 29, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Porky Pig Jr
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,052
    Fuzzyman
    May 12, 2004
  2. CoreyWhite
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    656
    JohnQ
    Mar 31, 2007
  3. Replies:
    13
    Views:
    591
    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
    Jan 5, 2008
  4. James Mills

    Re: Should I Learn Python or Ruby next?

    James Mills, Jun 22, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    346
    Gregory Ewing
    Jun 24, 2010
  5. Thomas Jollans

    Re: Should I Learn Python or Ruby next?

    Thomas Jollans, Jun 22, 2010, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    247
    rantingrick
    Jun 23, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page