A great question, Jon. Here are some things that I've stressed at times when teaching or mentoring. * Realize that programming is a service profession.  A program's users probably don't care what language it was written in or what editor was used to write it or why it wouldn't run on their operating system.  They have a job to do.   The challenge here is that programming can be a lot of fun, so it can attract people who love the act of programming and fill their programs with "neat hacks" that make them feel good but do nothing for their users.  This is the ethical equivalent of waiters in a restaurant standing around joking and flirting when you are hungry and want to order. * Like music, programming often rewards people who get a bit obsessed with it as youngsters and spend most of their time with it.  This can leave the programmers very short of basic social skills such as writing and communicating with other team members and their users.  This opens the door to the worst kind of bugs -- not doing something wrong, but doing the wrong thing. * To oversimplify, every instruction in the computer either serves the customer or the programmer.   The customer may want to multiply matrices.  In their mind, the program is a triply nested loop with a lot of multiplies and adds.  Those instructions belong to the customer.  Instructions to set up call stacks, create and destroy processes, do context switches, execute in device drivers, etc. etc. belong to the programmers.  The more you can attack and simplify this kind of bureaucracy in the computer, the happier both you and the user will be. * If a program speeds up by a factor of 10, it becomes qualitatively different.  Or if it slows down by a factor of 10.  Consider how Google would feel if it took 5 seconds to respond instead of .5 seconds...   Speed is important.  In many cases that I've seen, slow programs are slow because the "programmer's instructions" didn't support well what the customer wanted to do... * Interactive programs (Shell, Python, MATLAB, etc.) are great ways to prototype.  But beware of them as bases for production programs.  The problem is that bells and whistles can and do creep into the language and be unnoticed because they happen within human reaction time.  At the keyboard, you don't notice, or may even like the features, but when you are doing something a trillion times they can cause the "programmer instructions" to dominate the run time.  Also, typos can lurk for years before detonating if you don't have a strong typing and procedure definition environment. Hope this was the kind of thing you were looking for... Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Steinhart" &lt;jon(a)fourwinds.com&gt; To:"The Unix Heritage Society" &lt;tuhs(a)tuhs.org&gt; Cc: Sent:Fri, 01 Sep 2017 16:29:22 -0700 Subject:[TUHS] Follow-on to the Pascal/C/etc. discussion Hi everybody. I'm new to this list as a side-effect of my question about the provenance of strcmp and the convention of returning <0, 0, >0. I had to learn Pascal as a freshman in college which was challenging coming from BTL knowing C. Kept wondering how Pascal could be used for anything useful. The answer that I later saw in industry was "by adding non-standard extensions". Language discussions often turn to the issue of whether programming languages should prevent programmers from making mistakes or whether that's the job of the programmer. This is, of course, independent of discussing the expressiveness of languages. I agree that a lot of "programming" today consists of trusting and bolting together random library functions. That's not me; I often work on safety critical devices and I'm not going to rely on libraries of unknown provenance when building a medical device that I make be hooked up to it someday. Years ago I inherited a project written in hodgepodge of programming languages including ruby. My first reaction to ruby was "Wow, how do I get some of what they're smoking because it's better than anything I have?" I eventually asked Ward Cunningham about it because he was working for ruby house AboutUs at the time. His answer went something like this: Jon, you're an engineer and you understand engineering. You know programming and programmers and understand programming. Then, there are the people with whom we entrust our confidential credit card data. That's what ruby is for. This nicely summarized the current state of affairs in which the most critical tasks are assigned to the least competent people. I see this as a management, business, and political problem which can't be solved by different languages. I have often made the statement that "I would never hire someone who had to use glibc in order to implement a singly-linked list." I get push-back such as "Oh, and people can create bugs rather than using the debugged library?" to which I glibly respond "debugged library like OpenSSL?" I am more than a little terrified by the "everybody must learn to code in high school movement". What they're learning is something at a level akin to the ruby example above. The goal is clearly to make "coding" a minimum wage job and to many the distinction between "coding" and engineering is lost. I've spoken with many kids in the "future engineer" category who are frustrated at the lack of depth in the curriculum. I'd summarize it as teaching people to program without teaching them anything about computers. Anyway, I have been volunteering to teach technology to kids for years as karmic payback to my BTL explorer scout advisors Carl Christensen, Heinz Lycklama, and Hans Lie. Not to mention all of the amazing people that I met there when my dedication to hitchhiking up the the Labs after school and talking people into signing me in turned into a series of summer jobs. I'm in the process of turning my class notes into a book. The goal of the book is to teach kids enough about computers that they can understand what their code is actually doing and why one can write better code with an understanding of the hardware and environment. The book is in the editing phase so it's beyond wholesale changes. But I'm curious as to what you all think should be in such a book as I'll find a way to wedge in anything important that I missed. Thanks, Jon