Slices time complexity

[Rustom Mody]

On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 12:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Rustom Mody :
> 
> > However conceptually/pedagogically making a fundamenal distinction of
> > timeless | time
> > value | object
> > immutable | mutable
> > expression | statement
> > function | procedure
> >
> > is key to getting programming [and is something that Pascal got better
> > than most of its successors].
> >
> > The FPers want to squeeze the whole world into column 1
> > The OOPers want to do the opposite and are embarrassed by the existence of
> > column-1 [status of int in java etc]
> > Unless one is committed to some philosophical extreme position --
> > Only One True Way -- I believe accepting two fundamentals is the most
> > sane choice
> 
> I sympathize. Can you get Python without getting a language like C
> first? Can a baby be born without an umbilical cord? Can you skip Newton
> and go straight to quantum mechanics and relativity? I have noticed some
> experienced Java programmers are a bit lost in the woods because they
> don't have an idea of what is going on under the hood.

And how would you classify C# in this scheme (pun unintended)?

Note that C# is in .Net what C is in Unix -- the primary building block language.

But C# also has claims to being higher level than C like java/python etc.