"first"

fun "first" language to learn.

I say first because I took C++ in highschool and enjoyed it, and I wanted to try common lisp but I'm not certain if its supposed to be a joke or not.

any help would be nice.

>>80
Gawd, does your thick skull not understand the different between caring about performance in terms of seconds, and caring about performance in terms of the order (as in big-o) of the algorithm? You have to realize that it is much easier to code when you can just ignore the underlying machine and just copy what you have written down on paper. Ofcourse you should care about the general system that you program on but caring about whether the machine does in-place swap or not is just a waste of mental effort since they are both O(1) operations.

Mind, I am not denying that performance don't matter (for ex., servers and embedded systems, realtime and I wish, desktop systems) but they don't matter all that much in many fields of computer science. You should really not generalize practices in your little field to what happens in other fields.

In terms of learning, knowing how the machine works is a small part of what compute science is all about. It is mainly about algorithms and datastructures and solving real problems like computer vision, statistical analysis, linguistics and so on. These fields care about how you solve the problem, not about how fast it runs on a computer, especially when you have so much damn processing power lying around everywhere.

If you start out from the machine, students are going to feel frustrated and stuck in the machine, instead of learning about the fucking magic of computer science. The machine is really irrelevant, so programming around the machine is very boring and limiting.

>>81
Computer vision doesn't care about performance, really? I would think that something that is critical for robots to navigate some terrain would be time-sensitive. HIBT?

>>82
It a fairly big field. Yes, robots need to be efficient; they are pretty much real time systems. But there are plenty of places in cv where you don't have to care about efficiency. My point was that caring about efficiency should be the last thing you do. Not the first thing; in terms of both leaning computer science and implementing programs.

>>83
No, caring about efficiency should be the first thing you do, at the same time as you're designing the software. Thinking about it as an afterthought just leads to the sort of software we're seeing today --- bloated shit that needs more and more hardware to run.

Today's programmers could learn a thing or two from the demoscene.

>>84
Bleh, clear difference of opinion. Not going to bother anymore.

>>84
His point is:
1. Design effective algorithms, in terms of time- and space-complexity, trading one of for the other if and when necessary.
2. Write code.
3. Profile.
4. Optimize sections where performance is suboptimal, considering the task at hand.

I hate code bloat as much as the next guy, but this will mostly be addressed by the first step, and when it's not, then you go diving, after you know where to look.  Spending 80% of your time writing CUDA SIMD code and cycle-counting for a 'cat' replacement is a waste of time.

Learn physics, faggots. Programming is for SHITS

Learn faggotry, programmers. Physics is for SHITS

>>88
lol permutations are so randum xD

>>88
Back to /v/.

>>89
It's called entropy. Now kindly fuck off back to /b/.

>>90
fuck off and die you cock sucking faggot storm

>>89
It's called syllogism