11-01-2016, 07:11 PM
Looks like the original poster was one of those "not sincere" people, because he has not given any feedback to the replies. Maybe he has not read them? Whatever. Other people are liable to read this.
He thinks programming looks cool because it does something, but he has never gotten anywhere with anything because of lack of focus. So Focus. Pick something you think a computer can do, and figure out how to program the computer so it will do that. If there is something a computer can do and you can't do it in Python I would be very surprised. Your problem will be learning how to use the packages which provide the facilities. Same with any language.
(BTW, I have never used Python. I have seen the endless list of Python packages in Synaptic.)
C++ is a language only a computer programmer would love, and they do. C++ is C with extra stuff bolted on all over it. Its syntax is as arcane and abstruse as any language ever devised. You can turn little parts of the syntax into the entire program if you want to. They have contests for the most obfuscated code. C++ is not actually that hard to use, once you have a boiler-plate with the correct syntax as a guide. You can also ignore all the out-the-wazoo cutsie-poo stuff and make it perfectly clear if you want to. The reason I use C++, although I would recommend anything but C++ to start, is my history. I too think programming is cool, because you can do things, but I never had even the slightest desire to do it for anything but fun. 8080 assembly language -> Turbo Pascal (on 8086) -> C++ (80386)
Anything not as loonie as C++ is a better way to start learning programming. Once you understand the logic of the syntax in this other language, you will understand what is going on in C++, which is liable to be completely ass-backwards seeming. If people are recommending Python; fine. There is Free Pascal, which is some version of Pascal that is supposed to be like the old Turbo Pascal. Pascal was actually a rethought version of original C, the idea being to circumvent common mistakes and obscurity. You could think of it as language in which to teach programming, but not over-simplified.
He thinks programming looks cool because it does something, but he has never gotten anywhere with anything because of lack of focus. So Focus. Pick something you think a computer can do, and figure out how to program the computer so it will do that. If there is something a computer can do and you can't do it in Python I would be very surprised. Your problem will be learning how to use the packages which provide the facilities. Same with any language.
(BTW, I have never used Python. I have seen the endless list of Python packages in Synaptic.)
C++ is a language only a computer programmer would love, and they do. C++ is C with extra stuff bolted on all over it. Its syntax is as arcane and abstruse as any language ever devised. You can turn little parts of the syntax into the entire program if you want to. They have contests for the most obfuscated code. C++ is not actually that hard to use, once you have a boiler-plate with the correct syntax as a guide. You can also ignore all the out-the-wazoo cutsie-poo stuff and make it perfectly clear if you want to. The reason I use C++, although I would recommend anything but C++ to start, is my history. I too think programming is cool, because you can do things, but I never had even the slightest desire to do it for anything but fun. 8080 assembly language -> Turbo Pascal (on 8086) -> C++ (80386)
Anything not as loonie as C++ is a better way to start learning programming. Once you understand the logic of the syntax in this other language, you will understand what is going on in C++, which is liable to be completely ass-backwards seeming. If people are recommending Python; fine. There is Free Pascal, which is some version of Pascal that is supposed to be like the old Turbo Pascal. Pascal was actually a rethought version of original C, the idea being to circumvent common mistakes and obscurity. You could think of it as language in which to teach programming, but not over-simplified.
