> pointers-as-explicit-references are far easier to comprehend than Java's esoterica.

What is esoteric about Java’s references? They are basically equivalent to C pointers without arithmetics and marketed as references. It is pretty much the same for most high level languages.

The object/primitive distinction, which seems like something an intro CS student really shouldn't be wasting their time learning.

IMHO, the C-style */& was far clearer when I was first learning to program. Especially since you could just echo out the (virtual) memory address.

The object/primitive distinction is pretty much the very short list of primitives (even written with lower case letters) vs every other type.

> IMHO, the C-style */& was far clearer when I was first learning to program

Tell that to the million segfaults that students learning C experience (or worse, they don’t even get it!!)

Yes, int vs Integer. It does make sense that those would function differently. /s ;)

And C definitely has some inscrutable errors, but to me once I understood them, they always made sense in computer terms. Whereas Java errors and oddities only make sense in Java terms.

> For intro computer science students, pointers-as-explicit-references are far easier to comprehend than Java's esoterica.

C pointers are even worse as an introduction.