Undergrads are stupid? Blame the universities for teaching C and Java

https://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/61460559/
/g/ is where CS undergrads hang out. The quality of knowledge of /g/ reflects the quality of their education.

In Brazil you have C in introductory classes, second semester is C and assembly. Why are american CS classes such a joke?

The only way to teach someone properly is:
>pseudoassembly language to make the students get the basic principles of how a computer works (without introducing any platform specific stuff)
>C, to teach basic imperative programming and also memory-related matters
>modern C++ for introduction to OOP, templates etc, and also to make the students understand that automatic memory management is possible without a garbage collector
>a modern OOP language (C#, or possibly Java)
>a meme piece of shit scripting language (most likely Python)
>a pure functional language (most likely Haskell)
>SQL, an actual assembly language and webshit languages (Javascript, HTML, CSS) somewhere along the way

This way you get the full picture, a thorough understanding, and you do it in the proper ascending order of abstraction from the hardware layer.
That's what my university did in my CS course, and it was worth it.
And this order makes retards fail quickly, so here's another upside.

I like Java, its the comfiest language. But I wouldn't trade having my 101 class in C for anything. I believe it was a very valuable experience. Plus, it helped me with OS, Systems programming, and computer architecture later on down the road. Not teaching C just fucks students over later. Maybe it's for the best though cause ee need less JS script fags scraping out a CS degree and calling themselves developers anyway. Stallvolution will eliminate them from the equation.

As a CS major who was taught Java first then C and C++ later. Java was easier to learn, but I wish I was introduced to the complexities of C first. One big thing that I can think of is that Java has a garbage collector so you are basically allowed to write shit code. Once we started learning C, that shit wouldn't fly and the idea of memory allocation was lost on many.

C might be harder to learn, but for CS it's a better foundation imo.

>>20

strayed too far from the ``standard'' C syntax to be considered serious syntax by mental midgets.

Universities teach the C syntax because it is the only one that would take an entire semester to learn. C syntax creates thousands of questions that would not occur with any other language.

Suppose someone made a C-based language with lazy evaluation. When you declare int *p, q, p is lazy and q is not. They would spend a whole class on this. None of this has anything to do with lazy evaluation. It is bad syntax.

LITHPers are also liars because they don't distinguish between good syntax and bad syntax. They say that all syntax that isn't Sexps is bad because it doesn't allow macros (not true, but I don't care about LITH. They tell CS students that Pascal, Algol, BASIC, Fortran, etc. are just as badly design and hard to learn as C, which makes them liars, and I'm already fed up with UNIX and C liars, so I have no motivation to join another group of liars.