/tech/ - Technology★

>how to learn c#

Nice to learn the basics. But that's not very useful because everyone else already knows the basics and there's not much you can do with them. You hit a wall at learning advanced stuff. The community is small and the quality of yandex hits will be very hit or miss. StackOverflow will downvote/close your question because the average moron is offended he doesn't understand it. Nobody will bother writing a proper answer for you anyway, it takes too long and you get way more upvotes from answering "how to hello world" questions that millions of people will search for.

The whole concept of "learning to code is so easy literally just google it" suddenly stops applying when you want to go from just coding to software engineering. It's like the internet is saturated with information on learning syntax, doing fizzbuzz type exercises, one-off programs that fit in a single file, standalone programs that don't interact with other software, programs that only use the standard library, command line programs that don't even handle their arguments properly, programs that don't use hardware in any sophisticated way. Anything beyond that is virtually impossible to learn from the internet, you need to read textbooks, and you need to know the right ones.

>>1060157 (OP)

>endorsing Botnet 10

Also, as >>1060159 said, equating learning to code meme to becoming a software engineer is like saying that you become a professional mathematician after learning the multiplication table. First, you need to use multiple different sources because you can't learn everything from a single book or website. And the difference between amateur and professional is that the pro knows how to pick the right tools for the job and when to use each tool. An amateur will just copy-paste from the Internets like a retard. Finally, I think Ruby is the superior first language (after learning simple HTML and CSS ofc) since it's comfy and it does OOP in a better way (simply put Ruby is like a sane, non-pozzed and better version of Python). I would also recommend learning C (since UNIX and the GNU system is mainly programmed in C) and learning Scheme (because Scheme is very simple language, it doesn't make learning harder by adding unnecessary complexity, like many other languages do)

>Yandex

shoo, shoo, russian jew

>>1060168

>Finally, I think Ruby is the superior first language

You can learn to program with pretty much any language, a good introductory text/class is more important. Although, picking a language that doesn't get in the way of what people try to teach beginners is probably a good idea. I remember some introductory book or something that used Oz, I believe it was Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming by Peter Van Roy et al. Looked good, but Oz/Mozart is a very niche language, seems like it has a fair amount of clarity to it, though. How to Design Programs (https://www.htdp.org/2019-02-24/) uses Racket (https://racket-lang.org/), which is about as beginner friendly as you get with Lisp. Another good pair is Pyret (https://www.pyret.org/) + PAPL (https://papl.cs.brown.edu/2018/), good roots (Racket), good university, like Oz, Pyret is not a Lisp, and it seems sane.

Of course, there's SICP (its free), but a sturdier math background might be needed.

>does OOP in a better way

I'm sure plenty of languages do better than Python at OOP.

>>1060168

>simply put R*by is like a sane, non-pozzed and better version of Python

You misspelled Nim.

It's be great if you spaced this out in a way that is readable.

also, pull ups + chin ups are better than push ups. Running is better than squatting.

(No reason you couldn't do all of these, though)

>>1060170

>>1060232

Yandex is a good choice if you're a burger

Baidu can be good for "some things" too