He thinks it matters what language you start with

It's true. If you did, you'd know way more than the average programmer and have much more of a grasp with what's going on. Bottom up will always beat a top down approach to learning.

I know this is bait but I'll bite:

People who think this shit in real life are insufferable faggots who have 0 concept of how much abstraction there already is between them programming in "real" languages bare metal. The amount of abstraction that's achieved by going from logic gates to C is fucking astronomical, and you could probably never achieve writing a C compiler from bare metal in your entire life if it weren't for the work of hundreds of years of mathematicians working all this shit out for you. Comparatively, the jump from C to Python is minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Sure it might abstract away a few data structures and make things nicer to use, but it's nothing compared to carefully organizing bits of sand together in such a way that they perform actual computation.

Computer science and abstraction are tied together at the hip. Losers who can't understand that the continuous abstraction of mathematics is the very essence of computing are the most obnoxious fucking faggots in the world. The losers who can't understand that it's actually harder to think abstractly are the funniest of them all. Sure you can do the equivalent of hand-holding a modern abacus. You're not accomplishing anything by reinventing the wheel for the thousandth time, you're just doing it because someone needs some retarded shit to be fast, but you're not furthering the field of computer-science. You're not developing new fucking algorithms in C, you're implementing something that someone (far smarter than you) has already thought of in a slightly different flavor just so you can get a paycheck.

Wrong. Read SICP.

With that attitude, everyone should abandon old languages and always use newer languages.

Yes.
I don't see many people around using Basic (or even COBOL outside banking institutions), do you?
Fact is, """low""" level languages die together with their architecture, higher level languages on the other hand are a lot more future proof, since they are concerned with abstract concepts.
Actual smart people realize this, and develop better languages and tools to better express themselves. People who go around boasting about using """low""" level languages are simply out of touch with reality and not doing anything ultimately useful and productive, both for themselves and the field.
Bottom-up is a completely wrong approach to programming in general. Learning the details (of a particular machine which won't necessarily be the one you use if you do end up writing assembly) is completely pointless without first understanding the fundamental, abstract concepts and the bigger picture.

stupidity. languages are a tool with lots of different brushes and some languages come with more useful, higher quality brushes, and you need to choose the best and master it just as an artist would. Hopping to new languages is idiotic and you will never make anything truly great.

>Hopping to new languages is idiotic and you will never make anything truly great.
This could qualify as the most retarded thing I've ever read on Jow Forums.
You yourself hopped to "new languages", unless you're writing every goddamn thing in machine code, which you aren't.

Whether you like to admit it or not, some "brushes", as you call them, eventually become outdated and never paint anything better than others, in any domain.
Of course languages are tools, and you should use the right tool for the right job. And, as it turns out, "new" languages, as you call them, are very often the right choice, and it would be idiotic NOT to "hop" to them instead.
Not to mention that, as I already said before, learning "low level" concepts first when learning how to program is completely meaningless.

it might help if you need to get some kind of internship and be ready for it so you aren't an unproductive loser.

Dafuq you talking about?Learning assembly,no matter what device you're using,is a good foundation for learning C,and learning C gives you a good foundation for learning higher languages.

Nobody said higher languages are easy btw.

just say you're a Rust developer already

>learning how cars work first when learning to be a mechanic is completely meaningless.
>learning how the human body works first when learning how to preform surgery is completely meaningless.
>learning how chemicals react first when learning how to make medicine is completely meaningless.
looks like we've got a real philosopher here.

You are making the false assumption that learning C is good. Also, C already abstracts a shitton from assembly already. Implementing recursion in assembly, by directly manipulating the stack, for example, is something that is not possible in vanilla C, and something many "professional" C programmers don't even know how to do. And what if some machine implements it in a completely different way?

C doesn't give you any "foundation" to learn truly higher level languages such as Lisp, Haskell or Python. It is simply too different.

>programming is the same as being a mechanic, a surgeon or a chemist
If we were talking about learning how to engineer and design a computer, I would agree. But we are talking about programming here. Computation is, at its essence, a purely abstract and mathematical discipline, not even concerned with computers in principle.
Do you not know that one of the first things you learn about computer science is that it neither has anything to do with computers, nor it is a science?
Come back when you are of age.

>these wonderful arguments
I have never written a line of Rust in my life.

Dood. Learning Japanese after English isn't easier than just learning Japanese as a second language. If we're talking about Romance languages, then sure, it should be easier to learn langs of one group, but that's not always the case.

>Computation is, at its essence, a purely abstract and mathematical discipline
no shit, now if only somebody would invent a purely abstract computer without physical limitations you would have a point. i can only assume you're a victim of the snake oil that is functional programming, and that all this bitching you're doing is just coping by denial. stop using gay shit and being a gay retard and you wouldn't feel the need to write 500 lines on Jow Forums to justify your gay decisions.

> Jow Forums
What?

I get that your fantasy world where every computer is a PDP-11 just got shattered, but you don't have to claim people are "coping" and in denial because of pointing this out.
Not to mention that not a single thing I said is necessarily about functional programming. Concepts such as Data structures, computational complexity, recursion, algorithms or decidability have nothing to do with any particular programming pattern.

>now if only somebody would invent a purely abstract computer without physical limitations you would have a point
Church, Turing and other people, far smarter than you will ever be, already did it decades ago. Not sure what you meant by that.

Stop dowining Jow Forums buzzwords and actually learn a thing or two instead.

>I get that your fantasy world where every computer is a PDP-11 just got shattered
i don't write c and i'm one of the few people i know who actually likes the x86 isa so stop strawmanning, you clown.
>Church, Turing and other people, far smarter than you will ever be, already did it decades ago.
1. we were very obviously talking about physical machines. at least try to stay on topic, please.
2. masturbating academics are rarely if ever smart. what did they ever actually produce besides more material for future academics to jerk off to? you could have brought up FPGAs or something of actual value, but instead you decided to namedrop a couple of gay nerds like a douche. get it together, man.

>i don't write c and i'm one of the few people i know who actually likes the x86 isa so stop strawmanning, you clown.
Sounds genuine coming from someone who accused me of falling for the "functional programming snake oil".

>1. we were very obviously talking about physical machines. at least try to stay on topic, please.
You were either talking about physical machines or models of computation. The former would have made you hopelessly retarded, so I chose to assume the latter. Alas, I was mistaken. I don't think I can go on arguing with someone who unironically thinks that computation models have no meaning unless there is a physical machine with "unlimited resources".

>2. masturbating academics are rarely if ever smart. what did they ever actually produce besides more material for future academics to jerk off to?
I have never seen so much delusion and coping in a single sentence. Everything that gets done in technology and in many other fields as well is rooted in scientific/philosophical theories, discoveries and research. You have a seriously warped worldview if you can't understand this and seriously believe otherwise.
>FPGAs or something of actual value
FPGAs or anything you deem "of actual value" are just a particular technology, while my point is that the discipline of programming is machine-agnostic. You have no idea what you are even arguing about.

you wedged yourself into a discussion about learning machine code and you "chose to assume" it was a discussion about "models of computation?" you're a piece of garbage and you belong in africa.

bump