[blueatlas]

I really do not understand how so many people manage to fool almost everyone for so long.

To me, it's quite simple. Lack of teaching the fundamentals of programming. CS programs want to teach object orientation in first year CS. How can you understand object orientation and complex data structures until you've learned what a pointer or structure is (C code, yeah)? How can you understand a pointer unless you have a basic understanding of the machine, and in particular, how simple variables are stored in memory.

This is the boring stuff for professors and administrators of a CS program, but an absolute if you want to produce quality CS graduates.

Otherwise good students get lost in their first year of CS, which is the real shame here, given the shortage of CS talent. I advocate for better teaching of fundamentals, preceding more complex topics in computer science. Without it, we will continue to see CS grads fall down in the work force.

[saidajigumi]

How can you understand object orientation and complex data structures until you've learned what a pointer or structure is (C code, yeah)?

Speaking as someone who has spent considerable time in front of first-year college CS classes, attended SIGCSE conferences, and applied this in practice: trivially. Your "pointers-first" bias has long, long been debunked. Brown, Stanford, VT, and other CS departments have had fantastic programs teaching via OO-first methods for going on twenty years now. Studies of students taught this way have determined that they learn stronger design skills earlier, and have a greater focus on the problem to be solved rather than the machine being built. (At first: this is emphasis only on which skills are taught first.) Anecdotally, giving students a framework in which to understand why they're doing what they're doing early is hugely important. Then, a few semesters in, they do the deep dive into the minutiae that C, assembly, etc. afford.

This, in turn, is really no different than the era of pre-C++ CS instruction. Prior to C++'s big wave of popularity in the 90's, C was largely considered to have too many sharp edges for first-year CS instruction. Languages like Pascal, Modula-2, and even some Lisps were preferred to get basic algorithmic and data structures concepts across, with C generally relegated to the third semester or so. I'd call the common theme here "algorithmics and abstraction first" pedagogy.

C++'s burgeoning industry appeal eventually became a siren-song for many CS departments, who dropped the "not C first" pedagogical approaches and threw students into C++ right from the start. The result was generally disastrous. C++ is a terrible teaching language, with all of the sharp edges of C, with more in the OO/templates part. For contrast, Brown's program of that era used OO Pascal with a custom-built graphics library designed to be accessible to first-years, yet useful through senior project work.

[Chyzwar]

As someone that studied on Universities that prefer OOP first approach, I would disagree.

Design skills can be only learned through experience. Understanding what abstraction to apply is something you would learn after many "failed surgeries". You can only learn this on the job and by reading a lot of code.

Writing efficient software is impossible without understanding machine. Without knowing how things are represented in memory or how compilers/OS works you will never write good software. You will end people that do not understand how event loop in node.js work or write thread safe Java.

Just ask few practical question about Promises, Heap, GC, Threads and you will see blank faces from the same people that just white-boarded DFS.