First Programming Language

Understanding how programming skills develop is crucial in shaping effective teaching methods and ensuring better outcomes for students. An old paper I came arcoss explored how the first programming language a person learns can influence their long-term ability to write and understand code. The findings suggest that early experiences with programming shape the way people think about solving problems and the habits they carry into their careers.

The paper compares the influence of a first programming language to how a native spoken language shapes thought patterns. This idea is based on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which suggests that language influences how we see and understand the world. Just as people think differently depending on their native language, programmers often approach coding and problem-solving based on the first language they learn.

Since every language has a form and no two forms are the same, it follows that no two cultures having different languages can have identical views of the world. [Bolinger, 1975]

For example, some programmers carry habits from their first programming language into others. This might mean applying styles or structures from their first language, even when those approaches are less effective in new programming environments. However, this tendency can fade over time, depending on how the programmer is taught additional languages and how much they practice.

Programmers who begin with assembly language, a low-level programming language, often develop a preference for it. This is because assembly requires thinking in terms of the computer’s operations, which encourages a high degree of abstraction. This skill can help when learning higher-level programming languages, as it builds a solid foundation for understanding computational processes. However, over-reliance on assembly can make it harder for programmers to adapt to newer, more abstract languages.

One of the most important findings from the paper is that teaching quality has a much bigger impact on a programmer’s skills than the choice of their first language. Poor teaching can result in harmful habits, such as skipping the design phase of programming or failing to separate problem-solving from writing code. These habits limit a programmer’s ability to adapt to different languages or tackle complex problems. Good teaching focuses on helping students think abstractly and design solutions before coding. It teaches them to see programming as a way of expressing ideas, rather than just writing lines of code. This approach gives students the skills to think critically and adapt to new technologies.

The paper also highlights the risks of “linguistic myopia,” where a programmer becomes stuck in the patterns of their first language. This narrow perspective can make it harder to adopt new approaches or understand concepts that are outside their original programming experience. For instance, a programmer who starts with a procedural language might struggle to use object-oriented or functional programming techniques. To overcome this issue, teaching must focus on helping students understand the principles of programming rather than just the syntax of specific languages. Exposure to multiple languages and paradigms early in a programmer’s education can also reduce this narrow perspective.

The paper uses the term “Flatlanders” to describe programmers who have limited abstract understanding of programming concepts. These individuals either stick rigidly to familiar patterns or use technical terms without truly understanding them. This issue often arises when programming is taught as a purely technical skill, rather than as a way of thinking and solving problems. A common example of this problem is when programmers jump directly from a problem statement to writing code, without planning or designing a solution. This approach often results in inefficient or poorly structured programs. To prevent this, programming education should focus on teaching design and problem-solving skills from the very beginning.

Source Paper: The Consequences of One’s First Programming Language