[au8er]

I feel like python has never been a good introduction language. It is simply too abstract and hides too many details that are often required in other languages (Python is simply too flexible). It is good to learn if you are only scripting or calling library API, but I feel like it is a poor starting point if the goal is to transition into languages with more rigid structures such as C++.

[nicoburns]

Python is a good learning language precisely because it hides those details. This allows people to the learn the basics like variables, loops, strings, etc without getting overwhelmed with too much at once.

This absolutely provides a good foundation to learn lower level concepts later, although going bottom-up and starting with a language like C is also a valid path.

It’s also worth noting that a large proportion of developers will never learn C++, and will stick to higher level languages their entire career. And another chunk will only learn the lower level stuff much later when they have many years of experience to lean on.

If your goal is to immediately become a C++ developer, then you should learn C++, but that isn’t most people learning to program.

[analog31]

>>> Python is a good learning language precisely because it hides those details. This allows people to the learn the basics like variables, loops, strings, etc without getting overwhelmed with too much at once.

I wonder if whether this is a blessing or a curse depends on the person who is learning it. For instance, my first language was BASIC in 1981, and so my gut reaction to discussions about learning languages is that BASIC lets you at least imagine the workings of the machine that's running your program. The teacher can draw boxes on the blackboard to explain 10 LET X = X + 1

And we weren't far from the machine. There were not very many turtles on the way down to the level of logic gates. I also learned how a microprocessor worked, reading books as a high school kid, and articles in Byte Magazine, something that would be laughable for today's big CPU's.

That's a bottom-up approach. For others, a top-down approach might be better, e.g., seeing mathematical equations develop, in beautiful notation, without caring what the machine is doing under the hood.

Another comment in this thread mentions the ability to read code. Python has sprawled. I've been coding in Python for 10 years (as a "scientific" programmer) and recently took a Python skills quiz. I mentor beginners. Yet I scored barely at the top of "average." I can't read the code that's in a lot of the more elaborate Python packages.

A problem is motivating people to learn a learning language when they know that they'll outgrow it.

[au8er]

While learning, hiding details is important, but Python overdoes the abstraction. `for` loops and iterator based loops have been merged into one thing, and I am sure people write `for i in range(10)` without a good understanding of what the `range` function does. Even strings blur the line between individual characters and actual strings. The lack of clarity at these basic concepts is precisely why Python is not suitable as a first language, since it hides concepts that are prevelant in all other mainstream languages. As a result, I have often seen students develop bad coding habits and poor mental model of why their code works. Instead of learning proper programming concepts, they just know the syntactic sugar and abstractions that Python offers.

I do agree that Python provides a very small startup cost to writing code, the details are sacrificed to acheive this. This may be useful to capture interest/generate motivation and get a quick prototype/"helloworld" out, learning Python is only good for learning Python, not for programming in general.

[bilsbie]

I upvoted you even though this is wrong because it raises a good point.

If I was teaching beginners I’d do 1/3 python assignments and 2/3 C.

They need some easy wins at the start and to learn control flow and basic concepts. But mixed in with that we’d do C and learn what’s happening under the hood.

The easy wins are so key. I remember my intro class and we had to just copy some C++ code and compile it. Even though I felt like I copied the code exactly I got these incomprehensible error messages and just felt overwhelmed.

I actually quit the class after feeling like nothing would work and not having any fun.

Only years later doing a project in Visual Basic did I realize coding could be fun.

[Phrodo_00]

C++ is way too big to be an introduction language, and modern C++, especially with STL, also hides a lot.

You could choose a subset of C++ or just teach C (which would be my preference)