It wasn't arbitrary. It's a proven approach that has been shown to be successful; even with very young children. I honestly never considered the possibility that it couldn't be near universal.

What do you have in mind as alternatives?

You're assuming that they don't. Which has the more potential for harm? Remember: Until recently, it was thought that babies don't feel pain.

If I'm to err, I'd rather my mistake not result in torture.

So what you like are objects, not necessarily OOP (by whatever definition). Objects, used appropriately, can be useful. They're no panacea, of course, and their should be little doubt that they're misused more often than not.

I can't possibly disagree more here. OOP (in the Liskov sense) is anti-modular by its very nature. Languages like Java and C# make it much more difficult for beginners to learn about modularity as a result.

Please, enlighten me then! Show me the error of my ways.

If you can, stay away from platitudes, they won't actually help you make your case. I completely understand if that's all you can offer; that's my point after all.

People say that, but they never list the alleged benefits.

Give it a try. You'll fail, of course, but you'll ultimately find the exercise enlightening.

I get the attraction to Lisp. It's the same attraction I have to forth. They're both fun and interesting to implement. Well, at least when you first encounter therm.

So, yeah, I guess "Because it makes writing an interpreter really easy" is a good call.

I've heard lots of good things about it. I just haven't heard anything about it that's unique to OOP. Hell, no one can even agree about what constitutes OOP!

I'd ask you to defend it, but you'll just mumble something ridiculous about "modularity" and I'll be forced to laugh at you.

I thought this was supposed to be uncontroversial?

Classes? You can't be serious! Logic? If slashdot is any indication, most programmers couldn't pass an undergrad course in logic. Sure, you'll need an incredibly tiny subset of logic, but it's not a topic that needs special consideration. Most beginners work out the basics themselves without assistance. They certainly don't need a through understanding of the subject like a philosopher. I could go on ...

A better (much shorter) list of fundamentals:

- Data - variables, types, and structures (Just the basics, of course.)
- Flow control (iteration, branching)

That's it, really. (I may have even gone too far!) I can't really add anything else without stepping in to controversial territory.

Useful is a different matter, naturally, and we could add quite a bit more to the list. Though I doubt that it would be nearly as long as yours without becoming controversial.

Design patterns?

Jesus, it's like you're a best troll ever.

Spot on.

Sarcasm aside, it's a useful algorithm that beginners can easily understand. With the right prompts, they can even "invent" it themselves.

I was with you until the last paragraph.

How about we point beginners to a simple imperative language with an interactive mode? Pack it with simple but interesting games they can understand and modify.

You know, the same stuff we had when we were kids. It sure beats the shit we're giving them now.

tl;dr - The most important thing to learn is the trendiest thing. Closures are all the rage right now, so I'm going to go with that.

Yeah, it is.

Quicksort is an important algorythm. OOP is primarily marketing nonsense.

Total bullshit.

You think that's bad? I saw a guy once who thought that the length of a function should be determined by the size of the screen!