Whenever I learn about a high-level language I want to learn about, part of me says, "I should probably learn the lower-level language it's built upon to really master it". For example,

Ruby    => C
Closure => Java
Elixir  => Erlang

My experience with Ruby and C makes me think that I've got it backwards. I learned Ruby first, and I think it was a good introduction to a lot of concepts. It provided some general context that made learning C a lot easier than it would have been otherwise. Granted, Ruby was also the first language I learned in depth, so some of that might be chalked up to familiarizing myself with computing concepts in general, rather than any language-specific experience.

I think it's good to learn about what's going on under the covers, even if that's a layer you're not regularly working in. But is it generally better to take a top-down, or bottom-up approach when learning new languages?

  • 1
    In short: whatever works best for you. Here is a link to a nice article about Dijkstra's statement about learning (low level) Basic first, and why he might have been wrong. – Doc Brown Sep 9 '16 at 6:38
  • I like the "right tool for the job" approach. You can approach learning the same way. If you start your career by learning about web development, learning Ruby may make sense. If you start your career learning about operating systems and compilers, C may make more sense. If you are interested in games, C++ or C# may be a better choice. Etc. – Brandin Sep 9 '16 at 8:36

This may seem like a cop-out, but honestly....do both, if you can.

Higher-level languages are very good for teaching high-level concepts; you can accomplish a lot, very quickly, and learn good practices and design patterns. Learning a high-level language can teach you to look at problems in a big-picture way, and break them down into composable parts. I believe that with many high-level languages (declarative languages, functional languages, logic programming), it's easier to focus on the end goal, along with the patterns and decomposition required to reach that goal.

Lower-level languages are great for understanding what's going on at a hardware level, and I think that they are indispensable. The reason is this; high level languages are generally built upon lower-level languages. Learning a low-level language allows you to see past the abstractions and solve problems related to leaks in the abstraction; they are excellent for teaching fundamentals and they are also good at teaching a programmer how to be careful (and what gotchas to look for that a higher-level language might mask, such as memory management).

I would recommend getting your feet wet with a scripting language - something dynamically typed and interpreted - as well as a lower-level, statically typed, compiled language. (Many languages these days can straddle all of those categories.) Both experiences will make you a better programmer, and having the opportunity to do both is worth more than the sum of its parts; you'll be able to decompose large problems into a collection of very small ones, and solve those small problems easily.

  • 1
    This is all true. But learn some C++ and it'll teach you there is no level you can't play at in the same langauge if you're just a tad stubborn about it. – candied_orange Sep 9 '16 at 2:01
  • @CandiedOrange Very true. Many languages these days span multiple levels and can be used cross-paradigm. C++ was one of my first languages and I definitely learned a lot from it - but as a beginner, I wasn't really able to decompose problems easily. C++ taught me much more about the lower level stuff. Today, if I want high-level abstraction of ideas, I might reach for Haskell. – lunchmeat317 Sep 9 '16 at 2:22
  • excellent answer, I'd suggest adding that learning a higher level language nowadays might be easier because of the huge amount of tools generally available for those that can really help you out (IDEs, debuggers, static analyzers, ...), especially if something went wrong (as it will if you're learning something new). Think of debugging Java or C# compared to debugging assembly... – hoffmale Sep 9 '16 at 9:39


It probably depends. The biggest motivator I see for preferring one end of the spectrum over the other, for self directed study, is interest.

Trudging through c and writing console apps will be of little interest to someone who ultimately wants to write web application front ends. Or even web app back ends.

On the other hand, if making low level hardware"do stuff" is what floats your boat, how motivating will it really be to work through your standard PHP web stack tutorials?

Do what interests you first. Learn the lower and higher levels over time to better understand the level you're actually interested in.


I take the opposite view and would suggest a lower-level language like C as a first programming language. Yes, there is a slightly steeper learning curve, but there is a reason for that, and it will help you through any other language your take up from then on.

In a lower-level language, you (not some opaque class implementation of X) are responsible for managing each byte of memory, protecting against reading/writing beyond the end of your allocated space (automatic or dynamic storage), validating all your input/output, locating each needed position withing arrays, managing line-endings, etc..., and a thousand other fundamental aspects of programming that higher-level languages work hard to hide from you.

By learning to code at a fundamental level and developing good habits for input/output validation, file handling, memory management, etc... at a low level, your transition to any language is made easier and shorter because you will understand how the higher-level paradigms are implemented and how each of those fundamental aspects of programming is working behind the scenes.

In the continuum of languages from machine code, to assembly, to C, to your so-called object-oriented languages of C++, Java, and the rest, C occupies a unique position. It provides many of the features of a higher-level language while providing complete hardware-level control.

While others may suggest you may be able to get more done quicker starting with a higher level language, you will never have a better opportunity to learn programming from a fundamental level than by starting at the lower end of the scale. Transitioning to any of the languages from lower-to-higher level will give you much more of an understanding of what the higher-level languages provide, as well as clear insight to the limitations they have, and most-importantly -- why.


There is absolutely no point in learning C first to understand how Ruby works.

Learning how the interpreter works on a machine level may be interesting for mastery-level knowledge, but that doesn't strictly require knowledge of C, and is definitely not useful for a beginner in Ruby.

In the case of Closure and Elixir, learning the underlying environments (JVM and BEAM) is useful because they strongly influence the way the languages work, but again it's not really necessary to learn Java and Erlang for that.

That said, from a general programming skill viewpoint, learning a low-level language like C is useful to gain a better understanding of how computers work, or to have an escape hatch if your high-level language is inadequate for a task. But this is an additional skill to master, not a prerequisite to learning the high-level language.

  • I agree. I mean, you could just dive into Rubinius, which will also teach you about how a Ruby implementation works, and doesn't even require you to learn a new language. (Plus, I find Rubinius's source code much better organized, structured, and well-fectored than YARV's.) And for Clojure and Elixir it's even easier because there is only one implementation, and that is written in Clojure, respectively Elixir. – Jörg W Mittag Sep 9 '16 at 7:56
  • 1
    By the way, Clojure also runs on .NET and on ECMAScript, and Elixir also runs on Erjang, which is an implementation of BEAM on the JVM. This just goes to re-inforce the fact that languages are languages and language implementations are language implementations, and the two are really quite separate. (In fact, there are programming languages without implementations, that doesn't make them any lesser language.) – Jörg W Mittag Sep 16 '16 at 10:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.