[Sandman]

I'm not sure I understand you. You can't just start typing and getting instant feedback in Java simply because Java is not interpreted (well, actually, it is, but you have to compile to bytecode first). So, what you're saying about Java goes for just about any compiled language.

No, you also have to think about various command-line tools invocation (java and javac for starters)

Use "javac" to compile to byte code. Use "java" to run your compiled program. This is all you need to know about these tools to start programming. There are various options for using java and javac, of course, but it's not like you can't compile and run a simple program without these options.

As for this part of your comment:

create a file, name it correctly, put the same name inside with a `class` statement whatever that means, then put braces everywhere and a `main` and a `String[]` which you don't know jack about

Yeah. You have to know a bit of Java before you actually start programming in it. If that's one of Java's shortcomings, well then, there are a lot of languages with the same shortcoming.

[Dn_Ab]

>I'm not sure I understand you. You can't just start typing and getting instant feedback in Java simply because Java is not interpreted (well, actually, it is, but you have to compile to bytecode first). So, what you're saying about Java goes for just about any compiled language.<

This is not true. There are statitically typed languages, usally functional, with a read-eval-print-loop. Haskell, Ocaml, SML, F#, Scala are the main ones I can tink of. There are many more. I will also note that your parenthetical is slightly inaccurate in that jvms usually JIT bytecode and don't just inteprete it straight.

[Sandman]

After googling for a while, I found this great answer on SO:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3265357/compiled-vs-inter...

Lunaryom is correct. There are no 'interpreted' and 'compiled' languages, just different implementations. So, I was wrong in my original post. It would appear that you can just type and get instant feedback in Java (if you use Beanshell, for example).

[Dn_Ab]

I noticed the possibility of that semantic ambiguity, that is why I switched to noting static/dynamic typing instead of retaining your distinction on compiled/intepretated.

[scott_s]

The barrier to entry is certainly higher for Java, C++ and C than it is for, say, Scheme or even Python. Of all, I think Java has the highest barrier to entry. I have taught both Java and C++ to beginners (using the C subset with C++ I/O).

Several weeks into the semester for Java, a student asked me what "public static void main" meant. I started giving him the correct answer when I stopped myself: his background did not prepare him to even understand my answer. I then told him, "I'll give you the real answer in a moment, but don't worry if you don't understand it. For now, it's the magic you have to tell the compiler to get your program to work."

I call it "magic" because it is something the student have to write without understanding what it means; for them, it is indistinguishable from a magic incantation. The less magic a student has to recite to get a working program, the lower the barrier to entry.

[masklinn]

> You can't just start typing and getting instant feedback in Java simply because Java is not interpreted (well, actually, it is, but you have to compile to bytecode first).

This is a great excuse, but uninteresting in discussing the relative fitnesses of Java and Scheme for teaching. Unless you want to take Java down one more peg.

> So, what you're saying about Java goes for just about any compiled language.

That's not even correct, many compilable languages also have REPLs, any compiled language can be interpreted (you just have to compile it on the fly). Haskell and OCaml can be used in a REPL, so can Erlang (though the Erlang console is quite far from a full repl).

> Use "javac" to compile to byte code. Use "java" to run your compiled program. This is all you need to know about these tools to start programming.

That's actually quite a lot, compared to "launch this, and then start playing". And you have to invoke `javac` for every single source file and with the correct options (the main issue for beginners generally being the classpath configuration).

> There are various options for using java and javac, of course, but it's not like you can't compile and run a simple program without these options.

You can run a trivial program without most of these options, but to reach simple you'll very likely need -cp early on.

> Yeah. You have to know a bit of Java before you actually start programming in it. If that's one of Java's shortcomings, well then, there are a lot of languages with the same shortcoming.

Yep. And that makes them worse teaching languages. I am happy you agree.