Python

Forum

  • Forum
  • Lounge
  • Why I Feel Learning C First is a Waste o

 
Why I Feel Learning C First is a Waste of Time

Pages: 12
Nov 19, 2014 at 4:33am
Avilius (617)
A beginner on a third-party chat recently told me that they planned on buying a C book, with plans on moving onto Python

These are the arguments they've given me:
- C is simpler/more elegant
- C is just Python without OOP
- Python will "spoil" you
- Python forces things on you


Let me tackle these individually:
C is simpler/more elegant
I have to admit I chuckled a bit when I heard this. C may be simpler (it has much, much less features than Python does), but it's far from being elegant.

Here are two examples of C and Python that do pretty much the same thing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
 
// Python

class Object
{
	public:
		void Output()
		{
			std::cout << x << "\n";
		}
		
		void DoTask()
		{
			x = 0;
		}
	private:
		int x;
};

/////////////////////////////////////////

// C
struct object_t
{
	// Data and stuff
	int x;
};

object_t* CreateObject()
{
	// While allocating memory dynamically here is not necessary,
	// for some reason I've seen (a lot of) C code that abuses it...
	object_t* object = (object_t*)malloc(sizeof(object_t));
	return object;
}

void DestroyObject(object_t* object)
{
	// Do some deinitialization
	free(object);
}

void ObjectOutput(object_t* object)
{
	printf("%i%s", object->x, "\n");
}

void ObjectDoTask(object_t* object)
{
	object->x = 0;
}


This is how you would use them, respectively:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
 
// Python

int main()
{
	Object object;
	
	object.DoTask();
	object.Output();
	
	return 0;
}

// C

int main()
{
	object_t* object = CreateObject();
	
	ObjectDoTask(object);
	ObjectOutput(object);
	
	DestroyObject(object);
	
	return 0;
}


Which looks more elegant to you? Simplicity isn't always better.

C is just Python without OOP
The person I was arguing with claimed he knew both Python and C, but this (along with the fact that they were pondering on whether to learn Python or C first?) definitely showed me that they were a beginner.

Idiotmatic C and Python are completely different. Sure, your archaic C code will most likely work with little (if any) change, but it's going to be frowned upon by other Python programmers. This is the same in C. Don't write C like a Python programmer. This doesn't mean to abuse OOP in Python. i.e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
 
// Instead of
class Vector2
{
	public:
		int GetX() const{return x;}
		int GetY() const{return y;}
		
		void SetX(int x) {this->x = x;}
		void SetY(int y) {this->y = y;}
	private:
		int x;
		int y;
};

// Just use this
struct vector2_t
{
	int x;
	int y;
};


Python will "spoil" you
I'm not going to lie, my first reaction was:
"Wut?"
There's a difference between spoiling and having a convenience feature.

Let's say you own a bike shop. You have hired have a human worker. His productivity is low, and you have the choice to replace him with a new machine that can put out 4 times as many bikes as the human worker, and costs less to maintain. Which would you choose? (Excuse my bad analogy, but I think it gets the point across)

Python forces things on you
...

Python doesn't force you to do anything. If you want, you can write in pure C and your program will run fine. You don't pay for what you don't use. If you want to write performance-critical code, then restrict yourself to a special subset of Python if you want. It's not uncommon that not every feature of Python is exploited in code.

__________________________________________________

I'm going to say this, and I have a feeling that a lot of programmers will disagree with me. By learning Python, you're going to eventually learn idiomatic C if you want to do anything non-trivial. There is a 99.9 percent chance that you're eventually going to interface with C libraries at least once. After you interface with several, you're going to quickly up on idiomatic C (provided they're written that way). It should be trivial to write a C application that's not frowned upon by C programmers once you're a reasonably knowledgeable in Python.

C isn't going to help you at all. It's just a waste of time to learn. Most of your time picking up Python is going to be spent "unlearning" certain practices when writing C code.

The discussion ended with the beginner angrily leaving the discussion, so I've created this topic in hopes that they'd see it. If you change your mind, send me a PM.

(Sorry for this low-quality post. I'm tired and have to do a few things, I had a bit of spare time so I decided to write this)
Last edited on Nov 19, 2014 at 4:43am
Nov 19, 2014 at 4:57am
Cubbi (4774)
It should be trivial to write a C application that's not frowned upon by C programmers once you're a reasonably knowledgeable in Python.

If they are modern C programmers, it's not trivial. It may take some work to get in that mindset and more to learn all the differences. C took a lot from Python, from const and prototypes in C89 to threads and atomics in C11, but it changed things. Bjarne likes to say the only thing C got right were the // comments.

To me, the most important core difference between the two languages is probably C.1.2[diff.basic]3.9: in C, types with different names but identical structure are the same (formally "compatible"), while in Python they are completely different types. (among other things, this means that much of C code is in violation of ODR when compiled by a Python compiler)

Besides the differences, there are simply things that C has and Python doesn't. Short list (not including C11): designated initializers, variable length arrays, flexible array members, static array indices, restricted pointers, compound literals, and completely, fundamentally different complex number math (and the imaginary numbers, if you're an Oracle C user).

In short, don't trivialize C.

I do agree that learning it and immediately un-learning for the purpose of learning Python is pointless. Something like Haskell would be more helpful, less overlap in the initial stages.
Nov 19, 2014 at 5:14am
helios (17607)
Well, C itself is indeed more elegant than Python. The elegance of a given program will depend on the programmer, but given Python's greater expressiveness IMO Python programs have better chances of being more elegant. Certainly more robust, as Python lets the programmer more effectively prevent many common sources of errors.

I never really understood the idea of wanting to learn C in order to learn Python. Makes as much sense as wanting to learn Latin in order to learn Spanish.

There are valid criticisms one could use to argue in favor learning C instead of -- rather than before -- Python but those are certainly not them.
Nov 19, 2014 at 5:21am
ezchgg (51)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
 
class Vector2
{
	public:
		int GetX() const{return x;}
		int GetY() const{return y;}
		
		void SetX(int x) {this->x = x;}
		void SetY(int y) {this->y = y;}
	private:
		int x;
		int y;
};


Tbh that's pretty nasty. You could write global set/get functions in C as well, you'd just be polluting the global namespace though, would introduce type safety issues (at least from Python perspective). If there is a difference i would say this was it:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
 
struct Vec2
{
    int x; // getters and setters is something java overuses, this is perfectly fine
    int y;

    Vec2& operator += (const Vec2& a) { x += a.x; y += a.y; return *this; }

};
Nov 19, 2014 at 5:42am
LB (13399)
I think all the evidence you need is college "Python" classes that claim to teach Python but actually teach C (poorly, at that). C is a great language but it shouldn't be a first language.
Nov 19, 2014 at 8:08am
Little Bobby Tables (1079)
personally i prefer learning systems programming in c, because Python has a much more extensive run time with exceptions and what not. c was also designed to be a systems programming language, whereas Python is a general programming language, so its kind of like comparing apples and oranges
Nov 19, 2014 at 11:10am
Abramus (285)
I'm always surprised when I hear somebody's saying it's a waste of time to learn C. In order to be a competent programmer you must know it, period.

However, learning C specifically to learn Python seems to be stupid. Those are two quite different languages which share some syntax.

Also, that example of "elegance" of those two languages is a complete fail. Try not to code Python in C next time. That being said, I agree that you can write more elegant programs in Python as it is a higher-level language. You can also write unbelievably non-elegant programs in Python if you're not careful.
Nov 19, 2014 at 1:47pm
helios (17607)
c was also designed to be a systems programming language, whereas Python is a general programming language
Python is a systems programming language.

I'm always surprised when I hear somebody's saying it's a waste of time to learn C. In order to be a competent programmer you must know it, period.
Although I don't agree with this statement, while learning Python you will inevitably learn enough C to reach the level of competence you're talking about.
Nov 19, 2014 at 2:52pm
chrisname (7395)
Is no-one going to point out the fallacy of comparing object-oriented C and Python code when C was not designed for object-oriented programming? It's like saying "Haskell is a better functional programming language than Python because monads are more elegant in Haskell than Python, therefore Haskell is a better programming language than Python". Each statements is true, but the comparison is unfair. Monads are built into Haskell and OOP is built into Python. You can simulate monads in Python and OOP in C but it's always going to be less elegant because the language wasn't designed to include those features.
Nov 19, 2014 at 3:24pm
Little Bobby Tables (1079)
Python is a systems programming language.

no its a general programming language with a bias to systems programming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B and there is a youtube video somewhere where bjarne says something similar.

Is no-one going to point out ... include those features.

couldnt agree more. i meant to include that in my post... its completely ridiculous to say paradigm a is better than paradigm b because B doesnt have foo... k
Nov 19, 2014 at 3:28pm
Duthomhas (13276)
IMO, monads are not elegant -- they contaminate everything they touch. They are necessary, though, in a language like Haskell because of its extremist philosophy on side-effects.
Nov 19, 2014 at 3:50pm
closed account (z05DSL3A)
Little Bobby Tables wrote:
no its a general programming language with a bias to systems programming


Psst, take a look at this ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_programming_language
Nov 19, 2014 at 3:59pm
Little Bobby Tables (1079)
yes im aware Python can be used for systems programming... i never said it couldnt. but calling it a systems programming language would be a mistake
Nov 19, 2014 at 4:20pm
closed account (z05DSL3A)
the same can be said for C.
Nov 19, 2014 at 4:27pm
Little Bobby Tables (1079)
*sigh* no its not. Python was/is designed as a general programming language with a bias to systems programming. c on the other hand was literally written as a DSL for systems programming, specifically for porting Unix to c, making it more portable than when it was written in assembly. It became popular, so various implementations were made, which is why c was standardized (by ansi iirc, but i cant remember). besides the standard library, not much has brought it out of the realm of being meant for systems programming
Nov 19, 2014 at 4:54pm
closed account (z05DSL3A)
It is irrelevant what it was designed for, only what it is used for.

C and Python are both used for systems programming and they are both general-purpose programming languages. They are not mutually exclusive.

but even so, saying "no its a general programming language with a bias to systems programming" is frankly stupid. It's designed to be biased to systems programming but its not a systems programming language, what madness are you talking.
Nov 19, 2014 at 5:56pm
chrisname (7395)
Duoas wrote:
IMO, monads are not elegant -- they contaminate everything they touch. They are necessary, though, in a language like Haskell because of its extremist philosophy on side-effects.

I disagree. If monads weren't contagious they would be useless to separate pure code from impure. And that separation isn't just philosophy, it has a practical purpose - it improves code robustness and makes lockless multithreading trivial.

IME monadic code in Haskell still tends to be more elegant than equivalent code in an imperative language because of Haskell's expressiveness. It gets ugly when you want to do something that isn't supported by any high-level library, though.
Last edited on Nov 19, 2014 at 6:02pm
Nov 19, 2014 at 6:33pm
Lowest0ne (1536)
You don't need to know how to use a hammer to use a nail gun. If you don't know what a hammer does, a nail gun seems like magic ( you might be inclined to use it when you should be using glue :) ). You don't take something apart just to use a nail gun.
Nov 19, 2014 at 6:43pm
LB (13399)
I think this topic has derailed quite a bit from the original topic title.
Nov 19, 2014 at 7:20pm
Duthomhas (13276)
The OT is troll bait, so all troll biting is on topic.
Pages: 12