3 ms·

> You can't learn programming from either Unix or Windows. You can learn it from other applications and from tons of books, but you can't learn it from the OS.

> You can't learn programming from either Unix or Windows. You can learn it from other applications and from tons of books, but you can't learn it from the OS. I grew up in an era of Windows 3.1+, so I'm probably showing my youth when I ask, how can you learn to program from an OS? Is this akin to compiling your own kernel from scratch and being forced to tinker with the kernel modules to get Linux 2.x to run on your 2015 laptop..?

adamnemecek 11y ago
I think that they are talking about discoverability. They are probably comparing it with Xerox Alto or similar.
drdaeman 11y ago
ZX Spectrum 48k had a BASIC interpreter as its primary OS. When the computer was powered on the first thing user would see was a REPL (128k version introduced a GUI menu with a few shortcuts). Although users weren't required to, they literally invited to learn some programming. Not that this was "user-friendly" in modern sense, but also don't think anyone had issues with this.
- JdeBP 11y ago
  To amplify that point: A lot of what were then often called home computers bootstrapped into a BASIC interpreter. To pick just a few: the Oric, the BBC Micro A/B, the Master, the Electron, the Commodore PET, the VIC-20, the TI 99/4A, and the QL The Jupiter Ace bootstrapped into Forth. None of these were akin to learning to program with the first step being the giant leap from zero to compiling one's own kernel. That is not because they didn't have kernels. Several did, coming with actual operating system kernels that underlaid the interpreter. QL SuperBASIC, for one example, was an applications program running on a multi-process multi-tasking single-user handle-based I/O operating system named QDOS. The learning to program had as its first steps the rather lower bar of the 2 or 3 line program that printed a string, or asked the user for input, or drew a coloured triangle on the screen ...

adamnemecek 11y ago

I think that they are talking about discoverability. They are probably comparing it with Xerox Alto or similar.

drdaeman 11y ago

ZX Spectrum 48k had a BASIC interpreter as its primary OS. When the computer was powered on the first thing user would see was a REPL (128k version introduced a GUI menu with a few shortcuts). Although users weren't required to, they literally invited to learn some programming. Not that this was "user-friendly" in modern sense, but also don't think anyone had issues with this.

JdeBP 11y ago
To amplify that point: A lot of what were then often called home computers bootstrapped into a BASIC interpreter. To pick just a few: the Oric, the BBC Micro A/B, the Master, the Electron, the Commodore PET, the VIC-20, the TI 99/4A, and the QL The Jupiter Ace bootstrapped into Forth. None of these were akin to learning to program with the first step being the giant leap from zero to compiling one's own kernel. That is not because they didn't have kernels. Several did, coming with actual operating system kernels that underlaid the interpreter. QL SuperBASIC, for one example, was an applications program running on a multi-process multi-tasking single-user handle-based I/O operating system named QDOS. The learning to program had as its first steps the rather lower bar of the 2 or 3 line program that printed a string, or asked the user for input, or drew a coloured triangle on the screen ...