4 ms·

While I agree that I also don't know of any 'great coders' which started with these games, I don't think that these games were available for anyone coming from

While I agree that I also don't know of any 'great coders' which started with these games, I don't think that these games were available for anyone coming from either my generation (in my 20s, now) or any of the previous ones. The Code.org push happened when I was in High school, far too old to be of target to any of these types of games, and the ones that did exist---let's be honest---were pretty bad. As for >The hard part about coding is the problems that aren't in the code Yes, while I do agree, that's only true once you're already comfortable with coding. I know many people who can set up Eclipse, have no idea that Ctrl+Space is the autocomplete function, and who can write and compile simple programs, but given a slightly more difficult task involving some relatively simple (for us, now) algorithm, would throw their hands up in the air and say that they "don't know how to tell the computer how to do that" (approx. quote). Though anecdotal, it might be of interest: my youngest cousin started learning how to code through Scratch and Mindstorm (all of which are graphical programming languages) and has had no problem picking up 'true coding' in the past few years, writing simple programs in Python. She's 8 now, I believe. Of course, correlation, causation, it's really up in the air to be honest, but I do think the graphical nature of all of this might have opened her eyes to a much bigger world than the cryptic matrix-like text which fills our screens---which, personally, is how I imagine many people view programming.

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
I'd challenge the idea that Scratch is a “visual” programming language. It has you put together blocks to write code, but those blocks contain text and behave like statements in any vanilla programming language. The advantage of the block system is that it's discoverable (all available blocks are shown in and can be picked from the menu) and it mostly avoids syntax pitfalls (either a block fits into another or it doesn't). But it's also coupled with a sort of… game engine/scene graph kind of thing that your code affects and which you can interact with visually, which probably makes your code seem more tangible?
- LolWolf 9y ago
  Yes, sorry, when I say "graphical," I mean that the language has a graphical representation of the logical flow that doesn't have to be inferred from the text. E.g. in Scratch, as you mentioned, all blocks have text but the flow of the program is given in a graphical way, and can also be dictated in a graphical way. Additionally, the blocks themselves, while having text, also encode their purpose graphically (e.g. start, event-driven blocks, as distinguished from instructions, etc). Also as you mentioned, there's something nice about these blocks in that the system is completely discoverable and has the flexibility of combining statements, etc., without the exponentially large space one would have to think about if they attempted to discover the language by typing out statements using the keyboard. In other words, there is much-reduced complexity in graphical languages, along with the fact that programming becomes much less a question of remembering what a block does as opposed to finding the block which does what you want. A much easier problem for those unfamiliar with a language, which also allows them to focus on the problem as opposed to the specifics of learning the syntax of a language.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
    Yeah. I think the genius of Scratch is it's basically an advanced IDE for an ordinary programming language, rather than trying to create some alien “visual” thing.
mrec 9y ago
> I don't think that these games were available for anyone coming from either my generation (in my 20s, now) or any of the previous ones. S.E.U.C.K. [1] was published in 1987. RPGMaker [2] was first published in 1992 and is still going. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-%27Em-Up_Construction_Kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-%27Em-Up_Construction_Ki... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG_Maker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG_Maker
- LolWolf 9y ago
  I did use RPG Maker, having found out about it in middle school (though I had programmed before), it was actually kind of fun to mess with, thanks for reminding me about it! I may pass it on. But, anyways, my point was less that they didn't exist, but rather than one had to know this was a community and actively seek it out, whereas now an interested parent can go look up "learn to program" in the app store and have plenty of apps to install and have their kids run on an iPhone or iPad ready to go, instead of having to go through several websites along with setting up applications on their computer, etc., to get everything ready for their kids' use. Perhaps more succinctly, they have to have no prior knowledge of programming or of the existence of this community in order to have their kids be a part of it. Of course, before we could still Google stuff and see that it exists, but it seems to have more of an activation energy than a ready-to-install app from the app store; I should also note that this all was also pre-Code.org push, too. Compared to so many of the people I know with kids in elementary and middle school, many of whom are already starting to learn how to program, I can't remember this being the case at all with my year. All of this comes with the big warning label of "anecdotal evidence," but I'd love to know if there are any numbers on this!

TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago

I'd challenge the idea that Scratch is a “visual” programming language. It has you put together blocks to write code, but those blocks contain text and behave like statements in any vanilla programming language. The advantage of the block system is that it's discoverable (all available blocks are shown in and can be picked from the menu) and it mostly avoids syntax pitfalls (either a block fits into another or it doesn't). But it's also coupled with a sort of… game engine/scene graph kind of thing that your code affects and which you can interact with visually, which probably makes your code seem more tangible?

LolWolf 9y ago
Yes, sorry, when I say "graphical," I mean that the language has a graphical representation of the logical flow that doesn't have to be inferred from the text. E.g. in Scratch, as you mentioned, all blocks have text but the flow of the program is given in a graphical way, and can also be dictated in a graphical way. Additionally, the blocks themselves, while having text, also encode their purpose graphically (e.g. start, event-driven blocks, as distinguished from instructions, etc). Also as you mentioned, there's something nice about these blocks in that the system is completely discoverable and has the flexibility of combining statements, etc., without the exponentially large space one would have to think about if they attempted to discover the language by typing out statements using the keyboard. In other words, there is much-reduced complexity in graphical languages, along with the fact that programming becomes much less a question of remembering what a block does as opposed to finding the block which does what you want. A much easier problem for those unfamiliar with a language, which also allows them to focus on the problem as opposed to the specifics of learning the syntax of a language.
- TazeTSchnitzel 9y ago
  Yeah. I think the genius of Scratch is it's basically an advanced IDE for an ordinary programming language, rather than trying to create some alien “visual” thing.

mrec 9y ago

> I don't think that these games were available for anyone coming from either my generation (in my 20s, now) or any of the previous ones. S.E.U.C.K. [1] was published in 1987. RPGMaker [2] was first published in 1992 and is still going. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-%27Em-Up_Construction_Kit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoot-%27Em-Up_Construction_Ki... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG_Maker https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG_Maker

LolWolf 9y ago
I did use RPG Maker, having found out about it in middle school (though I had programmed before), it was actually kind of fun to mess with, thanks for reminding me about it! I may pass it on. But, anyways, my point was less that they didn't exist, but rather than one had to know this was a community and actively seek it out, whereas now an interested parent can go look up "learn to program" in the app store and have plenty of apps to install and have their kids run on an iPhone or iPad ready to go, instead of having to go through several websites along with setting up applications on their computer, etc., to get everything ready for their kids' use. Perhaps more succinctly, they have to have no prior knowledge of programming or of the existence of this community in order to have their kids be a part of it. Of course, before we could still Google stuff and see that it exists, but it seems to have more of an activation energy than a ready-to-install app from the app store; I should also note that this all was also pre-Code.org push, too. Compared to so many of the people I know with kids in elementary and middle school, many of whom are already starting to learn how to program, I can't remember this being the case at all with my year. All of this comes with the big warning label of "anecdotal evidence," but I'd love to know if there are any numbers on this!