Sorry 'bout that. I would have thought that "Make viewable by everyone" meant it was viewable to everyone. Remind me to send Google a bug report on that.:-/
OK, so what actually "was reported"? It looks to me like you were handed a cd full of screenshots by Sony and then ran home and uploaded them. Nearly all of the screen shots have already been posted to this site or other sites weeks if not months ago.
Is this seriously all that came out of SDG?
Seeing as the 2.0 firmware notes seem to have been a fake, I was really hoping for something more out of SDG than just a bunch of screen shots. --Travis
I am bit dissapointed as well for no announcements. Isnt today the last day? maybe they will have a "grand finale" announcement - like Star ocean 4 exclusive or some other exclusivity. --shase
Looks and sounds like a whole bunch of nothing to me. --haywood jablomey
Your link doesn't really prove your point.
Digging through all of that link-cruft, it seems like the only "must have" title is Little Big Planet. (Which is not new information.) If it's as good as Sony is claiming it's going to be, it may help sell a lot of PS3s. But that's still a pretty small list. The rest is your standard list of sequels and military games. WarHawk, Devil May Care 4, Rainbow Six, MLB '07, Ninja Gaiden, etc. While each may be a moderately fun game in of itself, nothing really reaches out to me to make me want to part with $599 of my hard earned cash.
Some of the upcoming PS3 titles will be available on the PC if I'd like to play them there. My wallet is still not opening. They'll even be cheaper than the PS3, and be available in the bargin bin in a year. Nope, I got better things to spend my money on.
Sony NEEDS "must have" games. Games that will reach out and pry people's wallets open with a crowbar. So far I'm not seeing them.
What's to say there won't be a few amazing gems in there?
Because if there were, they'd be announcing those rather than "We've got 34 games coming up." Very few people think in terms of how many Wii games are coming. (Most of them are the boring market analyst types.) Nearly everyone thinks in terms of Super Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Mario Party, Strikers, NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, etc. i.e. Powerful titles that carry weight in their names. Not "We've got X number of games coming to the Wii!"
Also, "fun over graphics" makes me roll my eyes. Get this through your heads, people - the two are not mutually exclusive.
I'll get that "through my head" when you agree to get this through your head: There is a limited budget when developing a game. If you spend it ALL on graphics assets, you can't spend it on the game. There MUST be a balance between the two. Super Paper Mario took the opposite extreme. It used a 3D Vector Drawing engine to produce 2.5D graphics (they're really 3D, but you usually see them from one side) of a drawn nature. The engine isn't going to win any awards on photo-realism, but it does the job very nicely.
The money that the Intelligent Systems team didn't spend on graphics was then able to go to story line, scripting, level design, puzzle design, game variations, item variety, character design, etc. The result is a stunning example of a game that is nice to look at, but truly pulls its weight in the gameplay department.
Remember, graphics don't make the game fun. They enable fun games to be created. If you don't balance the two, the result is games that aren't fun. (With the CD-i Zelda titles being the extreme end of that.)
Nintendo understands the ADD generation where ridiculous short party games are all that many ppl find fun today. Some of us others still enjoy the epic detailed intricate hard games that come with 360/PS3 territory
Not epic and detailed? You obviously haven't played Super Paper Mario.
Since I've been itching to try out the new Charts feature on Google Spreadsheets anyway, I threw together a spreadsheet of the Windows memory requirements:
Sony just announced a whopping 34 titles that are upcoming for the PlayStation 3.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a single gem like Super Paper Mario than 34 unnamed, generic, run of the mill "games". I'm sorry, but I'm not 14 anymore. I don't have time to play constant mediocrity. So a single really fun game is going to appeal to me more than a gluttony.
And while I'm on the topic, I'd like to point out that Super Paper Mario literally defines what Nintendo means by "fun over graphics". The graphics are quite pretty vector drawings, but there is no $4,000,000, ultra-realistic, shiny armored characters that look good on an HDTV. Instead, the company put their budget into every aspect of the game. There are nearly a dozen different "pixls" you can pick up, giving you a wide variety of methods of solving puzzles. EVERY character in the game has its own lines. There are no "generic" NPCs. The storyline (while quite lengthy at times) is amazingly well done and lends itself directly to the gameplay. All the towns and areas have rich histories and plenty of text about the characters that populate them. The gameplay itself changes quite often. Besides the usual jumping around, there are amusing street-fighter-type battles, a cute NES-style RPG simulator, passcode protected areas, puzzles requiring special button presses or a specific order of block bashing, switch puzzles, item combinations to make new items, a shoot'em'up boss level, etc, etc, etc.
I have been making a point of purchasing most of my Wii and Gamecube games at either used or below retail prices. But Super Paper Mario was worth every penny I paid for it. It is truly a fresh game that drives the bar of quality ever higher. If the PS3 had a game like Super Paper Mario, I can tell you that they'd be selling a LOT more boxes right now. Even at $699.
I wonder exactly what more plans they have for markets they "don't really get"....
If you read Bill Gates' book The Road Ahead sometime, you'll realize that Gates has some very impractical visions of the future. WebTV was everything he dreamed of for the future of home computers, which is why Microsoft bought them out. It didn't seem to quite occur to Gates that the computer would absorb the television instead. (A subtle but important distinction.) Expect Microsoft to try and make your cellphone into a "Digital Wallet"/Personal Assistant rather than following the more practical "micropayment" designs that Europe ties to cellphones. (Gates believes that the digital wallet will completely replace the leather one.)
Re:Here's how it works from another perspective
on
How Image Spam Works
·
· Score: 2, Informative
What sort of a brain-dead moron would actually fall for spam? There can't be many people that dumb surely?(I hope....)
That's arguable. Mark Twain may not have coined the phrase, but he did popularize it. (At least here in the states.) So the attribution is perfectly valid. Though I suppose attributing it as "Popularized by Mark Twain" would be an even better attribution, as it is the msot accurate attribution while simultaneously saving the quote from becoming an "anonymous" saying.
See what happens when Slashdot puts its collective heads together? We find solutions!;-)
Tracking down the origin of this quote is difficult enough. Trying to properly attribute it to the original owner is even harder. Thus it's easier to stick with the attribution for which everyone is familiar, rather than appending a long genealogy of usage at the end of the quote.
(Of course, we heard the same ["no one wants to upgrade" line] during the 9x/2k->XP and NT->2k transition as well
FWIW, this line was as true then as it is now. Ever since Windows users got bitten by the Windows 98 early-adopter blues, they've been far more wary of upgrading their operating system. Especially when the transition was from the 9x line to the NT line of Windows OSes.
The problem is that users haven't had much of a choice on the upgrade issue. At some point Microsoft forces businesses to upgrade least they lose their discount plans. And consumers can't avoid the upgrade with new computers. Sure, they can try and install older versions of Microsoft's OSes, but they'll only hurt themselves. Microsoft tends not to back-port key features to previous versions of their OSes. (e.g. USB support was a major reason for 95 -> 98 upgrades.)
To be fair, Windows 2000 was an exceptional upgrade over Windows NT 4.0, and both OSes were fairly solid workstation platforms. So there was some reason to upgrade to both of them. However, most businesses prefer to approach major upgrades with caution. Something that does not appeal to Microsoft's bottom line. Thus the "upgrade or die" pricing plans.
What am I supposed to believe: facts, or Slashdot FUD?
The facts. And the facts are the Microsoft has been deferring the count of "Vista Upgrade Certificates" until the first quarter of 2007. So a large portion of the 40 million is from Vista licenses that Microsoft has been selling for the last year.
It's also important to note that there are no figures on how many of those upgrade certificates have been cashed in for an actual copy of Vista. Which means that the number of installed Vista Desktops could be a mere fraction of the 40 million unit number that Microsoft is providing.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." --Mark Twain
So when you teach your 2-year-old to think about cause and effect, they need to know that what they are learning is to think about cause and effect? All they need to know is that if they do x, y will happen.
Excellent! I think you've found the perfect example to make my point.
Logo Cause: Write code. Effect: Turtle draws stuff.
BASIC Cause: Write code. Effect: Computer does stuff.
Note how it's getting interpreted there. To a child, Logo is programming the turtle. To that same child, BASIC is programming the computer. It's all about what happens as the result of their actions. I hate to say it, but the turtle itself is too concrete. It draws the focus toward itself rather than the bigger picture of operating the computer. A BASIC interpreter, on the other hand, is a more abstract program that gives the student more direct control over the computer's functions. Especially on computers like the Commodore 64, where the BASIC interpreter and the OS are one and the same.
Now consider for a moment: If the thinking is that you're programming the turtle, then the student will always think of the language as only useful for programming the turtle. At least until exposed to another language or a new use for that language.
On the other hand, each BASIC program uses the computer's I/O in different ways. The computer can say something. Or it can ask a question. Or it can play a sound. Or it can draw some graphics. This opens the door for abstract thinking. The student can consider what is possible with the computer as a whole rather than considering what is possible with the turtle.
I hope you can see the logic now? That's not to say that some students aren't more naturally abstract in their thinking. They may get a lot more out of programming in Logo. However, that does not mean that Logo is a good general purpose tool for teaching programming.
The end goal of most Logo programs is to make a finished product (a picture of something); the turtle is a tool to help visualize the process (and to engage those who are very young). If you approach it as pushing the turtle around, then you are missing the entire point of Logo.
Logically, the first and second statements contradict one another. A Logo coder pushes the turtle around to perform the steps of the graphics to reach the end goal of creating a particular image or animation. Therefore, Logo is teaching them to push a turtle around. It is not (in their minds) teaching them how to program the computer itself. Only the turtle.
Again, I'm referring to Logo BASIC, so maybe we're agreeing here.
You keep referring to Logo BASIC, but I sincerely do not understand what you are referencing. Could you please explain what that is and why it is important to this discussion?
I don't think VB was marketed as a way to transfer BASIC skills to GUI programming, it was marketed as a simple way to create GUI programs for Windows which is exactly what it did.
Then why call it BASIC? As I said, VB has almost nothing in common with its supposed ancestors. A few keywords are the same, but seemingly for no real reason.
I don't disagree that VB was intended to make Windows programming easy. (A goal which it met with flying colors.) My argument is only that Visual Basic is not BASIC. It traded on the name to attract developers, not because it was a true derivative.
It's a bit like the situation with Java vs. Javascript. The two languages share some syntax elements (both being descendants of C-style syntax), but their actual implementations are as different as night and day. The only reason why Javascript is called Javascript (it was originally called Livescript) is because Netscape and Sun were partnering to bring Java to the browser at that time. Netscape made sure that Livescript could perform scripting on the Java Applets, and thus thought it would be cute to call it "Java"script.
In any case, I apologize if it seemed like I was on a Microsoft-bashing tirade. I'm only attempting to point out that VB is not BASIC. Making any statements about BASIC based on VB represents a grave injustice to the original BASIC language.:-)
Well, first, their cognizance of whether they are "programming" isn't as important as the concepts they are learning.
Untrue. If they don't know what they are learning, then how can they ever apply it? Furthermore, programming courses attract those students who want to actually program. If you're not providing the impression to the student that they are actually programming, then how do you expect them to take an interest in the things you are teaching them?
Note that I should have mentioned that Logo BASIC is what I'm referring to, not just Logo -- I should have made the distinction.
What is Logo BASIC? Logo is Logo. The concepts of loops and subroutines are core to the language itself. That still doesn't change the fact that students will see these features as merely in support of pushing the turtle around. Because the end goal of every Logo program is to make the turtle do something interesting.
Now if you taught Logo without the graphical component, it could make for a half-decent teaching tool. However, I see little that the syntax would offer over the syntax of BASIC. BASIC is straightforward and easy for an english-speaking person to grasp. Logo adds a variety of identifiers and lexical control structures that make it less accessible to someone with no prior programming experience.
e.g.:
TO HELLO
PRINT [Hello, world!]
END
vs.
PRINT "Hello World!"
to whatever
for [i 0 6 1][ ;stuff
] end
vs.
10 for i = 1 to 10 step 1 20 'Code goes here 30 Next i
As you can see, BASIC is a lot easier to grasp for the untrained eye. It's only after one has experience that lexical control structures appear natural.
As to why Basic still gets slammed, I think you're incorrect, it has little to do with Dijkstra's 1986 article. We've moved past that, and it's the VB scripters who now get slammed on Slashdot. Just my opinion, from what I've observed over the last several years.
I don't think you understand. Visual Basic always gets slammed. It's a lousy excuse for a language, so it should come as no surprise that the technological elite don't like it. That's secondary to the fact that classic BASIC is regularly slammed as well. (As Google can helpfully demonstrate.)
BASIC generates ire as a backlash against its marketing. The language would be long gone from this world had it not been called BASIC, but the name makes people think it's easy or appropriate for beginners or something. In fact, by comparison to modern languages -- even modern languages from 15 years ago -- it's counter-intuitive, difficult, and inflexible. Further, its descendants retain many of the old flaws, but people continue to make excuses for it on the baseless claim that it's easy or simple.
BASIC is counter-intuitive? Difficult? Inflexible? Well, let's see if you have a point. Here are a myriad of Hello World programs in BASIC vs. modern and semi-modern languages. (Specifically, C, C++, C#, Java, Smalltalk, and Eiffel.) Let's see how the various languages stack up, shall we?
create make feature
make is
do
io.put_string("Hello, world!%N")
end -- make end -- class HELLO_WORLD
Yes, I see what you're getting at. BASIC is obviously a confusing and inferior teaching tool. </sarcasm>
As for BASIC's descendants, those are not BASIC. Microsoft (which set itself up as "the BASIC company" in the 80's) raped a perfectly good language in an attempt to convince people that they could reuse their BASIC skills to make GUI programs. In reality, Visual Basic is about as far from the original BASIC as you can get. It could have been a descendant of FORTRAN or COBOL for all it has in common with BASIC. Even QBasic traded away the simple syntax in favor of more advanced features. Great for professional software development (!), but lousy for teaching. (i.e. The worst of both worlds.)
Logo teaches them to think in terms of processes, as well as teaching the importance of syntax.
No, Logo teaches them to push a turtle around the screen. It doesn't really convey a sense to young children that they're "programming" a computer. I technically had Logo before I ever had BASIC, and it took me years to realize that it was supposed to be an introduction to programming. Most of us saw it as an introduction to computer graphics.
As for your comment that BASIC gets slagged on slashdot -- I think typically it's VisualBasic that gets slammed, for giving people the tools to get a bit of programming done without making sure they have programming concepts down.
While Visual Basic is a poor tool to teach programming (most "programs" taught are simple GUI constructs with little to no code), the original BASIC regularly gets slammed because of Dijkstra's 1968 article, Go To Statement Considered Harmful. Dijkstra's core argument was that GOTO statements created spaghetti code. While this is unavoidable in assembler, his point was that it does not need to exist in high-level languages.
That paper had a profound effect on languages that followed, resulting in many modern languages doing away with a GOTO keyword altogether. (e.g. Java reserves GOTO, but does not implement it.) Taken by itself, Dijkstra had a point. Unfortunately, he went on to say: "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration." This started the idea that BASIC is somehow the "wrong" way to teach programming.
The truth of the matter is that the design of BASIC will only limit programmers who are not interested in a long term career (or at least hobby) in computer programming. Most BASIC programmers quickly find the limitations of the GOTO statement on their own, and need little prodding to move to subroutines via GOSUB calls. From there, a programmer quickly learns the limitations of global variables. This makes the introduction to procedural functions much easier.
Basically, it's easy to provide a student with new tools when they feel the need for them. If you simply give them the tools without giving them the background, they will never learn to use the tools correctly. That's why I personally believe that classic BASIC is still an excellent teaching tool. Besides having simple syntax that any child can understand (one instruction goes after the other, see?), the interpreter environment allows children to play around with the instructions without having to write complete programs for each experiment. This invaluable teaching feature is lacking in modern structured programming.
Thus it is my personal belief that we need to STOP reinventing teaching languages, and just go back to what works. All we're doing with these new languages is giving them the CompSci version of "New Math". And all that "New Math" ever accomplished was to generally confuse children, and ensure that they never take up higher maths. Such is the result of providing highly structured coding tools to a child who wants to explore.
You can read more of my thoughts on this subject in this article.
I was laughing at the thought that some folks might actually think the AG would give anything credibility
Indeed. Gonzales isn't exactly a popular guy as of late, with his own party calling for his dismissal. I'm personally hoping that it will add credibility to the dust-bin solution.;-)
[I]f you read the linked article, you will find one interesting comment from Mr. Lamar Smith:
"As we have gone forward, the list of accusations has grown, but the evidence of genuine wrongdoing has not." Mr. Smith added, "If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing issues."
Oh, that is interesting. Sounds a lot like like a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" deal, doesn't it?
Microsoft also said Open Office, an open-source program supported in part by Sun Microsystems Inc., infringes on 45 patents. Sun declined to comment on the allegation.
Excuse me? As I recall, part of the Java settlement was that Sun got access to Microsoft patents and technology to improve OpenOffice. So "detailing" 45 patents in OpenOffice seems a bit specious to me. Does anyone else remember this settlement?
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this bill. It's basically the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 (text) reincarnated as the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007. Don't you see how much better the new version is? It's got 2007 in the name! Congress, therefore, MUST pass it this time!:-/
As far as I can tell, Congress didn't even care to look at, much less vote on it. The only difference this time is that the Attorney General is attempting to submit the law himself to give it more credibility. (It was previously backed by Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R) of Texas.) My hope is that it will end up in the same dustbin as the last attempt.
Oh noes! A troll posted my email address unscrambled! OMG, OMG, OMG! Not like I've never done that before. Oh, look! I can even link to it too!
You, my good friend, are just one in a long line of trolls who've pestered me. Here's a hint, though: Don't enemy me just before you decide to go on a trolling spree. It kind of gives away who you are.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the graph:
http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4554/windowsme
Here's the data it's pulling: (Memory is in MB.)
Your link doesn't really prove your point.
Digging through all of that link-cruft, it seems like the only "must have" title is Little Big Planet. (Which is not new information.) If it's as good as Sony is claiming it's going to be, it may help sell a lot of PS3s. But that's still a pretty small list. The rest is your standard list of sequels and military games. WarHawk, Devil May Care 4, Rainbow Six, MLB '07, Ninja Gaiden, etc. While each may be a moderately fun game in of itself, nothing really reaches out to me to make me want to part with $599 of my hard earned cash.
Some of the upcoming PS3 titles will be available on the PC if I'd like to play them there. My wallet is still not opening. They'll even be cheaper than the PS3, and be available in the bargin bin in a year. Nope, I got better things to spend my money on.
Sony NEEDS "must have" games. Games that will reach out and pry people's wallets open with a crowbar. So far I'm not seeing them.
Because if there were, they'd be announcing those rather than "We've got 34 games coming up." Very few people think in terms of how many Wii games are coming. (Most of them are the boring market analyst types.) Nearly everyone thinks in terms of Super Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, Mario Party, Strikers, NiGHTS: Journey of Dreams, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, etc. i.e. Powerful titles that carry weight in their names. Not "We've got X number of games coming to the Wii!"
I'll get that "through my head" when you agree to get this through your head: There is a limited budget when developing a game. If you spend it ALL on graphics assets, you can't spend it on the game. There MUST be a balance between the two. Super Paper Mario took the opposite extreme. It used a 3D Vector Drawing engine to produce 2.5D graphics (they're really 3D, but you usually see them from one side) of a drawn nature. The engine isn't going to win any awards on photo-realism, but it does the job very nicely.
The money that the Intelligent Systems team didn't spend on graphics was then able to go to story line, scripting, level design, puzzle design, game variations, item variety, character design, etc. The result is a stunning example of a game that is nice to look at, but truly pulls its weight in the gameplay department.
Remember, graphics don't make the game fun. They enable fun games to be created. If you don't balance the two, the result is games that aren't fun. (With the CD-i Zelda titles being the extreme end of that.)
Not epic and detailed? You obviously haven't played Super Paper Mario.
Since I've been itching to try out the new Charts feature on Google Spreadsheets anyway, I threw together a spreadsheet of the Windows memory requirements:
2 Avkn0zhNfTcQ
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pdgLUlhjY2
If that isn't a hockey stick chart, I don't know what is.
BTW, does anyone know how to get the labels to show up correctly?
Sorry, s/699/599/g
Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a single gem like Super Paper Mario than 34 unnamed, generic, run of the mill "games". I'm sorry, but I'm not 14 anymore. I don't have time to play constant mediocrity. So a single really fun game is going to appeal to me more than a gluttony.
And while I'm on the topic, I'd like to point out that Super Paper Mario literally defines what Nintendo means by "fun over graphics". The graphics are quite pretty vector drawings, but there is no $4,000,000, ultra-realistic, shiny armored characters that look good on an HDTV. Instead, the company put their budget into every aspect of the game. There are nearly a dozen different "pixls" you can pick up, giving you a wide variety of methods of solving puzzles. EVERY character in the game has its own lines. There are no "generic" NPCs. The storyline (while quite lengthy at times) is amazingly well done and lends itself directly to the gameplay. All the towns and areas have rich histories and plenty of text about the characters that populate them. The gameplay itself changes quite often. Besides the usual jumping around, there are amusing street-fighter-type battles, a cute NES-style RPG simulator, passcode protected areas, puzzles requiring special button presses or a specific order of block bashing, switch puzzles, item combinations to make new items, a shoot'em'up boss level, etc, etc, etc.
I have been making a point of purchasing most of my Wii and Gamecube games at either used or below retail prices. But Super Paper Mario was worth every penny I paid for it. It is truly a fresh game that drives the bar of quality ever higher. If the PS3 had a game like Super Paper Mario, I can tell you that they'd be selling a LOT more boxes right now. Even at $699.
If you read Bill Gates' book The Road Ahead sometime, you'll realize that Gates has some very impractical visions of the future. WebTV was everything he dreamed of for the future of home computers, which is why Microsoft bought them out. It didn't seem to quite occur to Gates that the computer would absorb the television instead. (A subtle but important distinction.) Expect Microsoft to try and make your cellphone into a "Digital Wallet"/Personal Assistant rather than following the more practical "micropayment" designs that Europe ties to cellphones. (Gates believes that the digital wallet will completely replace the leather one.)
Enough to pump and dump penny stock, it would seem.
That's arguable. Mark Twain may not have coined the phrase, but he did popularize it. (At least here in the states.) So the attribution is perfectly valid. Though I suppose attributing it as "Popularized by Mark Twain" would be an even better attribution, as it is the msot accurate attribution while simultaneously saving the quote from becoming an "anonymous" saying.
;-)
See what happens when Slashdot puts its collective heads together? We find solutions!
Sure about that, are you?
Tracking down the origin of this quote is difficult enough. Trying to properly attribute it to the original owner is even harder. Thus it's easier to stick with the attribution for which everyone is familiar, rather than appending a long genealogy of usage at the end of the quote.
FWIW, this line was as true then as it is now. Ever since Windows users got bitten by the Windows 98 early-adopter blues, they've been far more wary of upgrading their operating system. Especially when the transition was from the 9x line to the NT line of Windows OSes.
The problem is that users haven't had much of a choice on the upgrade issue. At some point Microsoft forces businesses to upgrade least they lose their discount plans. And consumers can't avoid the upgrade with new computers. Sure, they can try and install older versions of Microsoft's OSes, but they'll only hurt themselves. Microsoft tends not to back-port key features to previous versions of their OSes. (e.g. USB support was a major reason for 95 -> 98 upgrades.)
To be fair, Windows 2000 was an exceptional upgrade over Windows NT 4.0, and both OSes were fairly solid workstation platforms. So there was some reason to upgrade to both of them. However, most businesses prefer to approach major upgrades with caution. Something that does not appeal to Microsoft's bottom line. Thus the "upgrade or die" pricing plans.
The facts. And the facts are the Microsoft has been deferring the count of "Vista Upgrade Certificates" until the first quarter of 2007. So a large portion of the 40 million is from Vista licenses that Microsoft has been selling for the last year.
It's also important to note that there are no figures on how many of those upgrade certificates have been cashed in for an actual copy of Vista. Which means that the number of installed Vista Desktops could be a mere fraction of the 40 million unit number that Microsoft is providing.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." --Mark Twain
Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are speaking about programming languages for beginners, right?
Excellent! I think you've found the perfect example to make my point.
Logo
Cause: Write code.
Effect: Turtle draws stuff.
BASIC
Cause: Write code.
Effect: Computer does stuff.
Note how it's getting interpreted there. To a child, Logo is programming the turtle. To that same child, BASIC is programming the computer. It's all about what happens as the result of their actions. I hate to say it, but the turtle itself is too concrete. It draws the focus toward itself rather than the bigger picture of operating the computer. A BASIC interpreter, on the other hand, is a more abstract program that gives the student more direct control over the computer's functions. Especially on computers like the Commodore 64, where the BASIC interpreter and the OS are one and the same.
Now consider for a moment: If the thinking is that you're programming the turtle, then the student will always think of the language as only useful for programming the turtle. At least until exposed to another language or a new use for that language.
On the other hand, each BASIC program uses the computer's I/O in different ways. The computer can say something. Or it can ask a question. Or it can play a sound. Or it can draw some graphics. This opens the door for abstract thinking. The student can consider what is possible with the computer as a whole rather than considering what is possible with the turtle.
I hope you can see the logic now? That's not to say that some students aren't more naturally abstract in their thinking. They may get a lot more out of programming in Logo. However, that does not mean that Logo is a good general purpose tool for teaching programming.
Logically, the first and second statements contradict one another. A Logo coder pushes the turtle around to perform the steps of the graphics to reach the end goal of creating a particular image or animation. Therefore, Logo is teaching them to push a turtle around. It is not (in their minds) teaching them how to program the computer itself. Only the turtle.
You keep referring to Logo BASIC, but I sincerely do not understand what you are referencing. Could you please explain what that is and why it is important to this discussion?
Then why call it BASIC? As I said, VB has almost nothing in common with its supposed ancestors. A few keywords are the same, but seemingly for no real reason.
I don't disagree that VB was intended to make Windows programming easy. (A goal which it met with flying colors.) My argument is only that Visual Basic is not BASIC. It traded on the name to attract developers, not because it was a true derivative.
It's a bit like the situation with Java vs. Javascript. The two languages share some syntax elements (both being descendants of C-style syntax), but their actual implementations are as different as night and day. The only reason why Javascript is called Javascript (it was originally called Livescript) is because Netscape and Sun were partnering to bring Java to the browser at that time. Netscape made sure that Livescript could perform scripting on the Java Applets, and thus thought it would be cute to call it "Java"script.
In any case, I apologize if it seemed like I was on a Microsoft-bashing tirade. I'm only attempting to point out that VB is not BASIC. Making any statements about BASIC based on VB represents a grave injustice to the original BASIC language.
Untrue. If they don't know what they are learning, then how can they ever apply it? Furthermore, programming courses attract those students who want to actually program. If you're not providing the impression to the student that they are actually programming, then how do you expect them to take an interest in the things you are teaching them?
What is Logo BASIC? Logo is Logo. The concepts of loops and subroutines are core to the language itself. That still doesn't change the fact that students will see these features as merely in support of pushing the turtle around. Because the end goal of every Logo program is to make the turtle do something interesting.
Now if you taught Logo without the graphical component, it could make for a half-decent teaching tool. However, I see little that the syntax would offer over the syntax of BASIC. BASIC is straightforward and easy for an english-speaking person to grasp. Logo adds a variety of identifiers and lexical control structures that make it less accessible to someone with no prior programming experience.
e.g.: vs. vs. As you can see, BASIC is a lot easier to grasp for the untrained eye. It's only after one has experience that lexical control structures appear natural.
I don't think you understand. Visual Basic always gets slammed. It's a lousy excuse for a language, so it should come as no surprise that the technological elite don't like it. That's secondary to the fact that classic BASIC is regularly slammed as well. (As Google can helpfully demonstrate.)
BASIC is counter-intuitive? Difficult? Inflexible? Well, let's see if you have a point. Here are a myriad of Hello World programs in BASIC vs. modern and semi-modern languages. (Specifically, C, C++, C#, Java, Smalltalk, and Eiffel.) Let's see how the various languages stack up, shall we?
BASIC: C: C++: Java: C#: Smalltalk: Eiffel: Yes, I see what you're getting at. BASIC is obviously a confusing and inferior teaching tool. </sarcasm>
As for BASIC's descendants, those are not BASIC. Microsoft (which set itself up as "the BASIC company" in the 80's) raped a perfectly good language in an attempt to convince people that they could reuse their BASIC skills to make GUI programs. In reality, Visual Basic is about as far from the original BASIC as you can get. It could have been a descendant of FORTRAN or COBOL for all it has in common with BASIC. Even QBasic traded away the simple syntax in favor of more advanced features. Great for professional software development (!), but lousy for teaching. (i.e. The worst of both worlds.)
No, Logo teaches them to push a turtle around the screen. It doesn't really convey a sense to young children that they're "programming" a computer. I technically had Logo before I ever had BASIC, and it took me years to realize that it was supposed to be an introduction to programming. Most of us saw it as an introduction to computer graphics.
While Visual Basic is a poor tool to teach programming (most "programs" taught are simple GUI constructs with little to no code), the original BASIC regularly gets slammed because of Dijkstra's 1968 article, Go To Statement Considered Harmful. Dijkstra's core argument was that GOTO statements created spaghetti code. While this is unavoidable in assembler, his point was that it does not need to exist in high-level languages.
That paper had a profound effect on languages that followed, resulting in many modern languages doing away with a GOTO keyword altogether. (e.g. Java reserves GOTO, but does not implement it.) Taken by itself, Dijkstra had a point. Unfortunately, he went on to say: "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration." This started the idea that BASIC is somehow the "wrong" way to teach programming.
The truth of the matter is that the design of BASIC will only limit programmers who are not interested in a long term career (or at least hobby) in computer programming. Most BASIC programmers quickly find the limitations of the GOTO statement on their own, and need little prodding to move to subroutines via GOSUB calls. From there, a programmer quickly learns the limitations of global variables. This makes the introduction to procedural functions much easier.
Basically, it's easy to provide a student with new tools when they feel the need for them. If you simply give them the tools without giving them the background, they will never learn to use the tools correctly. That's why I personally believe that classic BASIC is still an excellent teaching tool. Besides having simple syntax that any child can understand (one instruction goes after the other, see?), the interpreter environment allows children to play around with the instructions without having to write complete programs for each experiment. This invaluable teaching feature is lacking in modern structured programming.
Thus it is my personal belief that we need to STOP reinventing teaching languages, and just go back to what works. All we're doing with these new languages is giving them the CompSci version of "New Math". And all that "New Math" ever accomplished was to generally confuse children, and ensure that they never take up higher maths. Such is the result of providing highly structured coding tools to a child who wants to explore.
You can read more of my thoughts on this subject in this article.
Indeed. Gonzales isn't exactly a popular guy as of late, with his own party calling for his dismissal. I'm personally hoping that it will add credibility to the dust-bin solution.
Oh, that is interesting. Sounds a lot like like a "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" deal, doesn't it?
Excuse me? As I recall, part of the Java settlement was that Sun got access to Microsoft patents and technology to improve OpenOffice. So "detailing" 45 patents in OpenOffice seems a bit specious to me. Does anyone else remember this settlement?
Look, don't shoot the messenger. Gonzales is going to do what Gonzales is going to do. I'm just reporting the facts.
I wouldn't lose any sleep over this bill. It's basically the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 (text) reincarnated as the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007. Don't you see how much better the new version is? It's got 2007 in the name! Congress, therefore, MUST pass it this time! :-/
As far as I can tell, Congress didn't even care to look at, much less vote on it. The only difference this time is that the Attorney General is attempting to submit the law himself to give it more credibility. (It was previously backed by Rep. Lamar S. Smith (R) of Texas.) My hope is that it will end up in the same dustbin as the last attempt.
Oh noes! A troll posted my email address unscrambled! OMG, OMG, OMG! Not like I've never done that before. Oh, look! I can even link to it too!
You, my good friend, are just one in a long line of trolls who've pestered me. Here's a hint, though: Don't enemy me just before you decide to go on a trolling spree. It kind of gives away who you are.