jeffj@sfmin.UUCP (J.S.Jonas) (03/11/86)
[declare bond_issue: float] > "When the only tool you have is a hammer, it is tempting to think of > everything else as a nail." > Arpanet: ARK@SALLY.UTEXAS.EDU > UUCP: {gatech,harvard,ihnp4,pyramid,siesmo}!ut-sally!ark I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think the first language matters as much as your first impression, attitude and technique. I started programming in Junior H.S., but that was just playing with the equivalent of a programmable calculator (a compucorp 025 educator). In high school (Francis Lewis HS, Queens, N.Y.) I learned programming as part of pre-calculus. We handled programming like a lab experiment - we plan the expected results and how we expect to achieve them. We had to *solve the problem* and understand it before writing a single line of code. The problem dictated the solution (ie - the structure of the problem dictates the structure of the program and what tools to use [language, libraries], not vice versa). ex: the teacher says "we will do iterative techniques" and develops an algorithm (like area under a curve using trapezoids) by hand. At this point, we can do the problem by hand (and calculator). Then we code it and see how a do-loop is used. What is *NOT* done is "we will learn loops" and find problems that do-loops are used for. Get the difference? It's like choosing a hammer for the nail, or a nail for the hammer. Continuing the toolbox analogy, knowing one language is like like using a hammer for everything. If all you know is to bang away, you will be able to do anything solved by a hammer, but not everything is solved with a hammer. Jeff Skot {ihnp4 | allegra | cbosgd} attunix ! jeffj