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.

>>28,31
The creation of C semantics and syntax is not post-doctorate at all. Anyone who knew assembly and a high level language like FORTRAN, BASIC or Pascal could make a better language than C.

What's hard is formal semantics of C. Post-docs can't do it after decades of trying and a lot of funding and incentives to do it. Semantics have already been done for languages with more features than C because they have a better design. C is just so badly designed that even the ISO committee doesn't know what code written in it is supposed to do. They often don't even know if it's defined by the standard or not. C++ is even worse.

>>29,32
If you want to use goto/jumps, you write goto.

static void *modes[] = { &&case0, &&case1, &&case2 };

That's not C, which is the root of the problem. If that was possible in C, these ``devices'' wouldn't exist.
#include <stdio.h>

int main() {
int a, i;
scanf("%d", &a);
switch (a) {
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
int j = 0123;
case 0: printf("%d\n", j);
};
while (a < 10) { case 1: printf("a"); a++; };
};
}