I agree that C is not the "best"; just, vital (I buy that Rust might supplant it.)
But there's nothing you engage with in Python that you can't get by learning C, or Lisp.
Like I said: Python is just a bad example.
But there's nothing you engage with in Python that you can't get by learning C, or Lisp.
Like I said: Python is just a bad example.
I see this repeatedly in our internship program, where people often ask after we "promote" them to other language work "Why can't XYZ look as clean and simple as Python?". I do think that's a lesson worth learning, and it's a little hard to learn except by osmosis. If I just tell someone "empirically, syntax matters a lot more than you might think in doing real work" it's easy to dismiss as understood-but-not-important. Jonathan Blow has a bit in one of his videos about "understanding" vs "really viscerally understanding", and I think this is one area where the latter simply can't be achieved without direct experience.
What worked for me was early exposure each of: a specific teaching language (somewhat like Eiffel, within a simplified environment), C/C++ and Scheme. They each taught me very different things and I'm glad they were all offered in my undergrad, although I think they should offer Scheme earlier (IIRC it was part of an optional third year course, which also touched on e.g. Prolog).