Slashdot Mirror
Stephen Wolfram: No Need To Teach With 'Toy Programming Languages' Like Scratch (wolfram.com)
theodp writes: From Stephen Wolfram's blog post announcing the Wolfram Programming Lab: "It's a very important — and in fact transformative — moment for programming education. In the past one could use a 'toy programming language' like Scratch, or one could use a professional low-level programming language like C++ or Java. Scratch is easy to use, but is very limited. C++ or Java can ultimately do much more (though they don't have built-in knowledge), but you need to put in significant time—and get deep into the engineering details—to make programs that get beyond a toy level of functionality. With the Wolfram Language, though, it's a completely different story. Because now even beginners can write programs that do really interesting things. And the programs don't have to just be 'computer science exercises': they can be programs that immediately connect to the real world, and to what students study across the whole curriculum. Wolfram Programming Lab gives people a broad way to learn modern programming — and to acquire an incredibly valuable career-building practical skill. But it also helps develop the kind of computational thinking that's increasingly central to today's world." So, when it comes to programming education, are schools hitchIng their cart to the wrong horse?
Not so long ago, a story came up on Slashdot about learning the Wolfram language (left as an exercise to the reader to locate).
As I recall, very quickly there were concrete things as a result of relatively easy things ... graphing or plotting or somesuch. And it went quick from there in terms of being able to do things people could relate to, because it's the same kinds of things they kids would learn in school.
So, I guess contrast this to the old fashioned languages we used to learn on like Logo ... ok, I can draw a line. I have always wanted to draw a line. How awesome, a line. (Don't get me wrong, Logo was my first programming, and it was cool.)
Wolfram seems like he's got a much more "results oriented" language for doing fairly practical things, and that it will be easier to see the immediacy of the pieces as it relates to something you grasp.
I wouldn't discount him out of hand when he says this. His stuff is far less abstract, and far more concrete in terms of the kinds of things you do.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
No you don't.
C++ and Java are both great beginner's languages.
I do not read or respond to AC's. If you want a discussion, log in. Otherwise, don't waste your time.
With Wolfram's site, they can't do that, because they hit an immediate roadblock: An email address is required.
The big red button right after the page title says "Start programming now (no sign-in required)".
I think a loggin is only required if you want to save work -- just like Scratch
I looked at teaching my kids scratch. I bought this book called super adventures in scratch. Sort of a comic book that knitted together diverse simple programs into a made up adventure story. No teaching of concepts just moving icons. I did not think much of it but I gave it to my kids.
Man was I wrong. that book was absolutely perfect for a 7 to 9 year old. they gobbled it up, and competed to finish chapters. played the games, and them tried to modify them. all on their own.
I could not have imagined a better introduction. And it reminded me a lot of my own self propelled learning by copying BASIC programs out of KILOBAUD magazine (dating myself).
The challenge then was that computers were slow so you had to figure out how to make programs go fast. The problem today is rather one of managing complexity. And this is where scratch beats wolfram as a language. Scratch has the ingredients we now consider essential most notably event dispatch, listeners and everything that makes objects work. The objects scratch mainly uses are literally iconified (usually a cat or something).
So yes, no one is writing a word processopr or computing sattelite trjaectories in scratch. but it cuts past the crap of languages (remebering syntax) but teaches you the abstract concepts just as a matter of course. There really isn't any good linear program in scratch and even calling subroutines is rare. You many dispatch messages to objects.
Wolfram is right if you already know about programming and are fixated on doing some calculations. but in regards to learning scratch is sugar coated health food that kids love.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.