> Wasn't Python originally designed as a language to teach children how to code

I think it would be very confusing for a child to start with a language so far away from low-level logic.

...And some people said BASIC was evil. At least what it is doing looks plain and direct.

> I think it would be very confusing for a child to start with a language so far away from low-level logic.

Depending on the person.

For some, it would be very frustrating to start with a language so close to the implementation detail, and so far away from what you want to do. It's very possible that someone might have long lost the motivation before one can do anything non-trivial.

I started from Python, to C, to assembly, to 4-layer circuit boards. Whenever I went a level deeper, it feels like opening the inner working of a blackbox that I normally only interacts with pushbutton on its front panel, but I otherwise is roughly aware of what they do.

On the other hand, much of my childhood was spent on tinkering with PCs and servers, including hosting websites and compiling packages from source, so I was already well aware of the basic concepts in computing before I started programming. So, top-down and bottom-up are both absolutely workable, under the right circumstances.

>I think it would be very confusing for a child to start with a language so far away from low-level logic.

Why?

I started with C++ and when they showed me C# I instantly feel in love cuz I didn't have to deal with unnecessary complexity and annoyances and could focus on pure programming, algorithms, etc.

Yes Tester,

but you are confirming my point :) ...You started with C++, then went to C#...

I started with C++ and switched around the beginning, so there wasn't any "low level knowledge" nor above c++ beginner level concepts.

Both: high-to-low and low-to-high have some advantages, but it's not like one is always better than the other.

high-to-low allows you to write stuff earlier - like programs that do something useful, GUI, web, whatever.

but at the cost of understanding internals / under the hood.

I loved BASIC as a kid. C was really confusing because I was constantly committing egregious memory errors without realizing it, the spooky effects were totally mystifying to me, and I didn’t even have the reasoning tools to know where to start with debugging it. It was definitely distracting from simple logic.

On the other hand, it made me think a lot about computer memory, and it makes computer memory easy to work with. Now I’m really comfortable with memory and encodings so that’s nice. I don’t think I would have gotten that by starting with Java or Python.

ABC, the predecessor from which Python took many syntax features, was. I wonder if Python also took a lot of the ABC implementation, given that it is still copyright CWI.

I agree that its popularity is very odd, but academics take what they are given when attending fully paid conferences (aka vacations).

What's the term to describe a ad hominem fallacy towards programming languages? Asked the almighty chat and got this new term:

"Code Persona Attack"

Python is fine.

This is a Ycombinator site, the traditional term is Blub.

And they're right. Python is not a well designed programming language - it has exceptions and doesn't have value types so that's two strikes against it.

Of course, C++ isn't either.