Op Mon, 26 Feb 2007, schreef Matt Emson:
> > Read the draft here and tell me what you think of it and whether you
> > have something to add:
>
> [explaining classes is not really harder than program/unit]
I disagree with this part. Sure, you will get questions of about
programs/units, but the purpose of the keywords belonging to them is way
easier to explain than public, static and class.
I want to throw another argument in the arena: libraries. The Java OOP
libraries are a powerfull framework, but this adds complexity. Java
standard I/O is such a maze of complexity, I'm quite sure readln is easier
to explain than streams and tokenizers.
> [Java doesn't have pointers but references]
I call references an eufemism for pointers. However, it is true that
pointers in Java, which is a managed language, are safer. I.e. you cannot
use a pointer after dispose, or leave a memory leak in Java.
However, that is the eternal discussion about the merits of garbage
collection. Given that most software is written in a language without
garbage collection (namely C), teaching people to be able to program
without garbage collection makes sense.
Daniël Mantione
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
