4 ms·

Scratch is another solution for this problem https://scratch.mit.edu/ https://scratch.mit.edu/

cesnja 9y ago
I don't think it is - after learning how to build things in Scratch, one still has to transition to a language with different syntax which is text-only. What was presented in this submission might just be the solution that helps reduce the anxiety of transitioning from icons to programming languages with text-based source code.
- spacelizard 9y ago
  Scratch is intended for older children who already have a certain level of literacy. There is another product, ScratchJr, for younger children that uses an icon-based UI: http://scratchjr.org/ http://scratchjr.org/ The transition path between them is indeed what you described.
- andybak 9y ago
  Blockly is based on Scratch and offers a transition path between visual and text-based programming. https://developers.google.com/blockly/ https://developers.google.com/blockly/
throwaway2016a 9y ago
Scratch is just a really pretty syntax highlighter where you don't have to type. You still have walls of text. It's just pretty colors.
- dTal 9y ago
  It's more than a syntax highlighter, it's a language where validity can be determined by static analysis, that prevents the programmer from making syntax errors in realtime. I think its potential as a serious tool is underrated.
  - throwaway2016a 9y ago
    Good point. I was referring more to it's benefits in relation to this article. I don't think it adds much value over what the original app being discussed here did. I think switching to icons adds more value in that context.
Bartweiss 9y ago
Honestly, I've got pretty mixed feelings about Scratch. It's a very cool initiative that helps make basic programming more accessible, and I value it as a way to show kids "hey, programming exists and can be fun!" But I've also had the misfortune of running events where kids use Scratch. These were 7th-9th graders who self-selected in, so up to a decade older than the target audience in this article. The results aren't exactly pretty, and they don't make me optimistic about giving Scratch to 5 year olds. Scratch seems to have two major problems: awkward control flow, and a gridless environment. - The first comes through as a large fraction of programs having broken or absurd loop and branch logic - often with a clear plan in mind, but terrible results. The difficulty of establishing hidden state encourages all sorts of ugly practices like handling a health bar by nesting the same code three times in conditionals to handle taking damage. - The second is that where SpriteBox uses grids to establish clear coordinate systems and touching/overlapping/separate states, Scratch uses a continuous field. It creates awkward and unintuitive collision results, adds a layer of unfriendly abstraction (what does "forward 200" actually mean?), and makes drag-and-drop initialization a touchy and miserable experience, even for adults. Overall, I think Scratch succeeds at reducing text, but fails to make abstraction and control feel approachable. It also introduces lots of novel headaches not present even in 'real' programming.

I don't think it is - after learning how to build things in Scratch, one still has to transition to a language with different syntax which is text-only. What was presented in this submission might just be the solution that helps reduce the anxiety of transitioning from icons to programming languages with text-based source code.

spacelizard 9y ago
Scratch is intended for older children who already have a certain level of literacy. There is another product, ScratchJr, for younger children that uses an icon-based UI: http://scratchjr.org/ http://scratchjr.org/ The transition path between them is indeed what you described.
andybak 9y ago
Blockly is based on Scratch and offers a transition path between visual and text-based programming. https://developers.google.com/blockly/ https://developers.google.com/blockly/

throwaway2016a 9y ago

Scratch is just a really pretty syntax highlighter where you don't have to type. You still have walls of text. It's just pretty colors.

dTal 9y ago
It's more than a syntax highlighter, it's a language where validity can be determined by static analysis, that prevents the programmer from making syntax errors in realtime. I think its potential as a serious tool is underrated.
- throwaway2016a 9y ago
  Good point. I was referring more to it's benefits in relation to this article. I don't think it adds much value over what the original app being discussed here did. I think switching to icons adds more value in that context.

Bartweiss 9y ago

Honestly, I've got pretty mixed feelings about Scratch. It's a very cool initiative that helps make basic programming more accessible, and I value it as a way to show kids "hey, programming exists and can be fun!" But I've also had the misfortune of running events where kids use Scratch. These were 7th-9th graders who self-selected in, so up to a decade older than the target audience in this article. The results aren't exactly pretty, and they don't make me optimistic about giving Scratch to 5 year olds. Scratch seems to have two major problems: awkward control flow, and a gridless environment. - The first comes through as a large fraction of programs having broken or absurd loop and branch logic - often with a clear plan in mind, but terrible results. The difficulty of establishing hidden state encourages all sorts of ugly practices like handling a health bar by nesting the same code three times in conditionals to handle taking damage. - The second is that where SpriteBox uses grids to establish clear coordinate systems and touching/overlapping/separate states, Scratch uses a continuous field. It creates awkward and unintuitive collision results, adds a layer of unfriendly abstraction (what does "forward 200" actually mean?), and makes drag-and-drop initialization a touchy and miserable experience, even for adults. Overall, I think Scratch succeeds at reducing text, but fails to make abstraction and control feel approachable. It also introduces lots of novel headaches not present even in 'real' programming.