Slashdot Mirror
The Little Coder's Predicament
An anonymous reader writes "There's an interesting article
on Advogato about the world of computing that kids today find themselves in compared to the world that kids in the 80's found themselves in. Learning to program in the 80's was simpler because the machines were more limited, and generally came with BASIC. Now we have Windows, which typically comes with no built-in programming language. What can be done to improve the situation?"
Free... Multiple free programming languages, includng BASIC... GUI Editors and debuggers... Copious documentation... Responsive community...
Seems like a no-brainer to me.
There's a huge difference between these two. Knowing a programming language doesn't inherit that you are able to design applications. I've seen so much spaghetti code in my life, I'm really glad that development (or the ability to feed custom lines of code into your computer) became so "hard".
Sure, when I used to own a C64, I could code stuff as I wanted it to, and I knew that my code will run on everybody's else C64, too. But today, you have to develop your applications in a team, which has to run on different platforms (even Win2K and Win98 are a difference!), and has generally became very complex. But that's another story.
Every problem has a solution, but every solution creates new problems.
It's the lack of a standard that I think the real problem is.
A few years back, I remember the rumors of a standard Windows Scripting Language that would be to Windows 9x systems what bat was to DOS. (I haven't power used Windows in years except to run games on, so forgive my ignorance.)
But the biggest issue with this would be what language? Do you make it uber simple like bat, which could do some interesting scripting things but no real programs? Do you let people actually make up some "interpreted language" programs (like BASIC) so they can do some things, then deal with the headaches from users messing up their systems (or, worse, the viruses that would span if the language actually let you do "stuff" with it - Windows has enough problems with Office macros running amuck in the world without adding more headache).
And what kind of language? Visual Basic is still around, but I don't know of any serious programmers who really use it hard core - it's more for very small, internal apps (yes, there are visual basic apps out there, but last I checked, nobody's programming Doom III in Visual Basic, move on). So would you build it in C, C++, C#, Java, Perl, Python, Pascal - as soon as you do, there's another group of people (even inside the company making this "Basic scripting language") who have thier own near religious ferver regarding how it should work.
Odds are, it's just easier to go out, get yourself the Java SDK and notepad/Cygwin and Perl/Python, and go from there.
Oh, and you can get a keyboard for the Gamecube. I'm not sure if they're selling in the US yet, but they're mainly used for Phantasy Star Online addicts. (Though I would not mind a "Typing of the Dead II" - that game kicked ass.)
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Neverwinter Nights comes with a toolset that includes a compiler for a C-like scripting language. A beginning programmer can write simple programs to create monsters, make them do things, cast magic spells, etc. It's got to be the most fun way to learn programming I've ever seen.
Kids don't want a "how to program" book. They want to write small, simple programs that do cool things. Gcc/gc++ and friends? For a 10-year-old? I don't think so.
What is required is a very simple interface with simple commands. Programming is about Problem Solving (I resisted the urge to put that in caps). It is not about coding style or compilers or interfaces, any more than a sports car is about the CD changer in the trunk.
Logic is logic. What we need *is* a return to a simple environment for kids. The smart ones will run into restrictions of the environment and branch out into other environments on their own.
IMHO, I think that kids who want to program will learn to program. I mean, the kids who learned everything about their computer 10 years ago didn't do it because the tools were there. The computer was something that interested them and they soaked up all they could when they could. The same is still true.
That all said - I agree, some of the beginning tools are not there in the sense that you no longer have DOS with BASIC. But in another way, you have so much more. Now these kids have the internet to get all their tools. This is where I think the author or the article is missing something - free SDKs are being DLed, and the real wiz kids are learning how to program in much more robust languages than BASIC. Because of such, I really don't see a need for Toy Languages.
RonB
It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
Another place to start is with the javascript interpreter available in most browsers. You can run a lot of javascript code locally w/o the need for a server, just make sure everything you need is in the file. Make all sorts of interactive calculators, games, whatever, via javascript/css/the DOM. Easily passed around via email/floppy/printed code listing/cd :-)
No no no. The kid wants to do something productive and actually program, not get trapped into setting up a whole new system and get involved in patches and unrelated packages. All he has to do is get a hold of a free language package on the web like Tcl/Tk or Perl or even LISP and he's good to go with one download and a double-click. So why go through the trouble of all that for something so simple? Talk about overengineering the solution.
This is the problem with Slashdot readers: they automatically assume Linux=freeware. You know, freeware *does* exist for other systems. However, the author of the article didn't necessarily state that Windows was the system that was loaded on the theoretical 12 year old's target system.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Actually, given this scenario of enabling a kid to learn programming, I'd absolutely point them at Java.
I was one of those kids that learned programming in BASIC on TRS-80's back in the early 80's... and back then the order of the day was procedural programming, so that's the methodology that I learned. Because of my background in procedural, I have never gotten fully comfortable with OOP, and it's been the Achilles' tendon of my career.
OOP is significantly easier to learn if you don't have to 'unlearn' procedural programming first... so start there with the next generation of programmers. Java's got it's flaws, but for learning Object Oriented Programming, it's the way to go.
-72
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
I can't believe some of you are suggesting that an 8-10 year old child should be introduced to programming by way of C, C++, or Java. Are you kidding? Perhaps you've forgotten what it meant to be NEW to programming and don't realize that children are going to approach programming in a different way than a veteran will.
You've got to think about what's going to make sense for a kid. When I was a kid, if I wanted to print "Hello, world!" to the screen I typed in 'print "Hello, world!"'. That makes sense. Do you honestly think a kid just starting out is going to know what all the extra crap he has to declare just to print something in Java means? What the hell do you think "public static void main" means to a kid? How is he supposed to understand that if he wants to "print" he has to use System.out.println? Furthermore, is a kid just starting out supposed to know what static typing is? Give them a language where they can just declare variables. At least that way they can draw a simple parallel to pre-algebra (children understand "x = 5" in math class... they don't have to say "int x = 5" in a math problem, so why would it make sense right off the bat to do so in a computer program)? Do you think children are going to understand even the basic concepts of OO programming? There are undergrads in colleges across the world who are having a tough enough time with that.
I'm going to recommend Python. It's the modern-day QBasic (not meant in a bad way... Python is very powerful, I mean that it can boil programming down the essentials for novices in much the same way that QBasic did). No static typing, simple syntax, and you can program interactively. It's definitely the best thing going for introducting children to programming today.
"I wouldn't let my 12 year old inside my pc"
I have to say you are way off base here.
The fact is that unless you let your 12 year old break/fix pc stuff, providing they show an interest in it, you are telling them not to be interested in science.
When I was 12, I was building clones from components, at 16 I was selling beige box's for a tidy profit. If my father had told me no when I wanted to see how the family machine worked, I would never have played with electronics very much.
Today itâ(TM)s so much easier. Just buy them a cheep ebay throw away, an you have nothing to worry about. They will learn more from an old DOS machine then the bloated XP box you probably run anyway.
My experience - early 80s home computing in the UK
---
Back in '83 my father bought the family a BBC B [1], and not long after playing the bundled games thoroughly I found the User Guide, tried out the teletext examples to do double height text, the moving man vdu23 example, and didn't stop until I got to the end. It was a wonderful learning experience..
Switch the Beeb on...
*blur*beep*
BBC Computer 32k
Basic
> 10 PRINT "Ooh look a programming language"
> 20 PRINT "that is right there at power up"
> 30 PRINT "and easy enough for a preteen"
> 40 GOTO 10
> RUN
From that prompt BBC BASIC was right there available to you from power up. Want to draw a triangle - plot 85.. play a middle C note - SOUND 1,-15,53,5. Now is that or talking to DirectX via C/C++/VB/Delphi/etc easier for a child?
Along with the Beeb, plenty other 8 bit machines also provided a simple to use programming environment right there by default at power up. No extras to have to buy, no alternative OS's to install, and what plenty of people who've posted here seem to be completely forgetting - a learning curve suitable for a pre-teen.
Nowadays
---
I think the article is spot on. A child who sits down at an out of the box Windows PC can do nothing more than play Solitaire. Sure there is plenty that can be done if you know about it. This requires purchase of $50+ books, programming languages, or knowledge to wipe the system and install some Unix variant with an oss compiler, etc. These are out of reach for a child. Even if a knowing parent had sorted out one of these solutions, it is still have a steeper learning curve.
It's all about accessibility, and nowadays programming really is less accessible to young children. Anyone who can't see that either wasn't there in the 80s or lives in an alternative reality.
[1] Huge UK success. Never cracked US market. See here for some background history on it.
[2] For the BBC, Electron, etc there was Micro User, A&B Computing, Acorn User, Electron World, and others besides. The C64/128 had Crash, Zzap, etc, and for the Speccy there was Your Sinclair, and lots of others I've forgotten.
--- Commission free trading & free stock up to $500 - use http://share.robinhood.com/kelvinp6