[ObviousScience]

> If they didn't get a java intro class, how do you think they would have done with something as algorithmic as an assembly language, a functional language, or understanding the nuts and bolts like Turing machines and automata?

I would argue that your last several examples (functional languages on) are more likely to be understood by people really good at math than Java is, and that Java isn't especially predictive in that regard.

Functional programming languages are closer in their structure to the way that math is structured than Java itself is, while Turing machines and automata are pretty much just outright math. (Especially when you start talking about the computational power of automata versus Turing machines and the equivalence between some kinds of grammars and automata.)

I expect you listed these because they're "hard" computer science, but I'd argue that you think they're "hard" computer science because they're mathy and not your forte.

I, for one, had much less trouble with Turing machines, autoamta, formal languages, computability, etc than I did with learning Java.

[Rooster61]

I think I would agree with you more if we were talking about Java on a full implementation basis (actually using the nuances of the language at a high level vs just learning the basic concepts such as variables and control structures common to most languages).

I also found Turing machines and automata much easier than conventional math classes. The point I was making was not that they are necessarily harder, but rather that they require a different type of mathematical thinking than your typical algebra based math. I would wager the same true for discreet math.

As for functional languages, I admittedly have never programmed in one and perhaps spoke out of personal ignorance. I have, however, heard from colleagues that back my original statement. It's basically hearsay, so take it or leave it.