4 ms·
I'm not exactly sure you got the point of the article here. One of the nice things about BASIC to which the author alludes is that it's a quick and dirty langu
by nrr 16y ago
I'm not exactly sure you got the point of the article here. One of the nice things about BASIC to which the author alludes is that it's a quick and dirty language. The implication is that, by being a quick and dirty language, it is well-suited for these educational ventures. I tend to agree. (I say this as someone who learned how to program using MIT Scheme!)
This isn't an issue of generations at all; it's an issue of accessibility. Doing the same educational tasks in a Web development environment that you would also do on a household microcomputer like the Commodore 64 is comparatively much more difficult. On the Web, you're learning HTML, Javascript, and potentially something like PHP. That's two or three different languages just to get out the door! On the other hand, on the C=64, you're learning only Microsoft BASIC. The barrier to entry is lower.
Face it. He's a kid. If he's enough of a nerd, he's invariably going to want to write cute little games to show off to his friends (I know I did when I was the tender age of nine, which was in 1996), so if you really want to make it a generational gap issue, give him a TI graphing calculator and tell him to have a ball. He'll thank you for it later.
- rictic 16y ago"cute little games to show off to his friends" Just you, javascript, and a canvas tag. No CSS, PHP, or further HTML required. The biggest impetus to my programming excitement as a kid was how hard it was to share what I'd done with my friends. A website is the easiest way to share a program I've ever known. Javascript is a very simple and forgiving language. Basic might be easier to learn, but I've never seen any evidence for this. I know I found it incredibly tricky, in hindsight largely due to limitations and design errors in the language.