Overkill: Java as a first programming language (2010)

I have past experience with Java/C/programming, so it's not too difficult, but a lot of my classmates struggle due to the complexity of Java. Thankfully, the AP test is mostly logic focused, but the amount of time we spend going over Java is less time we can talk about problem solving. (And the amount of time we go over topics like what "static" means is substantial)

Java was the first language used when I was in school, and nobody had a problem with the "Hello World" boilerplate. The professor took about 2 minutes explaining it, told us we'd cover it later in the course (and we did), and then we jumped into the main function.

A bad teacher can teach any language poorly.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the class was something like, "Data Structures in Java," and the main focus of the class was introducing data structures, with Java tacked on because it was popular at the time (right around y2k) and it made grading easier to have everything in the same language. After that, I don't recall there being any classes explicitly about learning particular language. There was an "Advanced Java" class, but it was an elective showing how to create GUIs and a (brief) intro to things like Java Server Pages.

Also the classic file read idiom (the C one) teaches some of the most basic things every programmer should undertand:

. file encoding (which you ignore)

. buffer sizes

. error handling (likely 80-90% of production code)

Your python example ignores these basic instructive points. Why is there no "String str=String.read(file)"? Because it's seldom useful in production (see points above).

I learned programming with Borland Turbo Pascal and later Delphi and have to admit I struggled with the OOP mindset at first. The according chapters of the book I used were filled with contrived examples that left me saying "I can also do this the old way!". Apart from this, I found the book to be very well written, though.

Then, I tried learning C++ (using a Book frome the same series) with Borland C++ Builder. Boy, was that a mistake. I didn't get around to understand why I had to keep using -> instead of . everywhere (before, I almost never used a pointer anywhere), the whole delete-dance was a nightmare and the Borland tooling was so filled with magical clicks that generated event handlers that I never understood how the whole thing really worked (you never got to see the whole code). Headers vs. .cpps was a similar disaster, and compiler errors could only be met with comparing your code with the example on a symbol by symbol basis[1].

So, while C++ is a nice language (far better than Java IMO), starting in it was a nightmare. The problem here is that you have to explain way too many concepts at the beginning (which still holds true even with C++17), and since APIs like the Borland GUI libraries or win32 are based on so much cruft and ages old crap, you'll never get to the point where a beginner can say "Look, I've drawn a circle!".

Honestly, if you ask me, programming courses should best just start with a modern version of Python. But even then you'll have trouble setting up on Windows and getting over the whole UI frameworks disaster.

[1]: This kills experimentation. That's the absolutely last thing you want to do if you're trying to teach a motivated kid how to program.

Edit:

Also note: Often, the mindset seems to be that "beginner" means someone at a university. In my opinion, that's a fallacy too. I started out when I was 11 - I'd never even had any decent english course in school back then. Think of that, and you'll start to see the flaws in starting out with some way too complicated concepts. We should get rid of the notion that a learner has to "push through" things (especially at the start!). It will be to the benefit of society.