Why is learning C so much more generally useful than learning React? What I mean by the last point is that learning C tends to develop skills that are useful in a lot of other parts of software and tech work: if you know how to write decent C, you’ll have a much easier time of understanding PostgreSQL internals, for example, while if you’ve learned React, it’s anyone’s guess as to whether or not that’ll actually improve your HTML skills, for example.
Great article. I’ve always been of the opinion that C should be one of, if not the, first things taught to programmers. You can explain Python in terms of C, but you can’t explain C in terms of Python.
I was taught by my teachers years ago that it was great that I wouldn’t have to pick up C thanks to higher level languages and I trusted them, and I regret it deeply. It took me years of curiosity and reading unrelated stuff to parse some stuff that would have probably taken so little time if I had simply started with C.
@[email protected]
@[email protected]
What would you think about learning Pascal, or Ada instead of C? They are also low enough to be useful to explain everything, but have more guard rails. (and without being the latest fad that Rust is)
Pascal was the language for teaching when I learned to code. Then Assembly X86, C, and Java. Pascal is solid.
@bluGill @rimu @apparia pascal is what I was taught in school to learn how to code
From the perspective of this thread they’re probably similarly good and “deep”. My instinct would be to err away from anything object oriented for beginners since OOP has always felt a little cultish to me and I think it’s maybe something “shallow” (at least shallower than plain C) that has a habit of masquerading as the one true “deep” way to do programming.
C also has the practical advantage of being fucking everywhere.
I like Rust, but beyond the subset that is “ugly C” – using
unsafeeverywhere and eschewing like 90% ofstd– it’s definitely shallow.