5 ms·

> I blame 8080. It's not accessible. Is it technically more advanced? Perhaps. I think blaming 8080 is extremely inappropriate here, as it is historically inac

> I blame 8080. It's not accessible. Is it technically more advanced? Perhaps. I think blaming 8080 is extremely inappropriate here, as it is historically inaccurate. Intel 8080 is a preliminary microprocessor (and usually even not considered a x86 processor at all), it was designed in the early 70s, it was very accessible. Arguably, it was the processor that created Altair 8800, which was the ancestor of the entire lines of home computers in the 80s. The original Microsoft BASIC interpreter also targeted Intel 8080 and Altair 8800, the BASIC interpreter would later be licensed to all the other home computer manufacturers including Commodore. The derivative of the Intel 8080, Zilog Z80, was used on Sinclair and MSX computers, particularly, ZX Spectrum is the British-equivalent of Commodore 64, and MSX is the Japanese equivalent (also made and sold in some European countries) and introduced a generation to programming. With the correct historical background in mind, you better to blame 8085, 8086 or 8088. It was those processors that established the x86 architecture and the IBM PC, leading us to desktop computing as we know it today. Long words short, 8080 gave us home computers. 8088 gave us desktop computers.

misterman0 7y ago
Thx for straightening me out. Ok, so let's blame 8085, 8086 or 8088. Or, we (as in I) can blame no one and instead, only realize there's no blame to manage. Anyway, I regret that we killed 6502. I hope my kids will pick up programming anyway. I think later in life they will feel crippled if they didn't.
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
  > Or, we (as in I) can blame no one and instead, only realize there's no blame to manage. I agree, I think the problem was not a particular microprocessor, but a greater cultural issue. At the end of home computer era, a PC has became someone's workbench, end users are not expected to learn and write programs anymore. There were bright sides, Xerox Alto, GUI, desktop publishing, multimedia, widely-available programs, no need to repeat those stories, we all know them. Meanwhile, accessibility to programming has largely been lost in this process. On second thought, it's not all black-and-white, some accessibility to programming still exists. On Unix-like systems, "python", "perl" is one command away, and even on Windows, JavaScript is one browser window away. If the next generation rewrites the computing history today, I wonder what tools/environment would be seen as the 21st century equivalent of 6502 and home computers. I'm sure it would have a dedicated chapter to Raspberry Pi and Arduino devboards at least.
  - misterman0 7y ago
    >> even on Windows, JavaScript is one browser window away I have nothing but love for Bill Gates' software. I programmed my vic 20 using his BASIC. In my twenties I had no trouble picking up WINTEL + JS. But that's because I had already learnt what is computing. I had already realized what is a virtual machine and what is a "high-level language". When I try to explain to my kids the architecture that is today's computing I don't know where to start. Now I wish there where sprites. When I was ten I grasped the concept or sprites. There is a fair amount of cargo-culting in the following statement but I still believe in it: If we had maintained the 8-bit architecture and even 6502 as a "gateway drug", today, we would be much better off. Talent is hard to find, in my mind, because there is no longer a C64.
    - ronsor 7y ago
      It's not even that. You just need something simple to get started with that produces instant results and is built in to the computer. Ex: VBScript, bash, python, etc. You don't explain everything from scratch.
      - misterman0 7y ago
        You are suggesting, are you not, that top-down is as good as bottom-up? To that I disagree. I believe what caught my interest was the bottom-up approach that was the commodore manuals.
        bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
        The original discussion was accessibility to programming, and now it's top-down vs. bottom-up programming, which is a different topic. But IMHO, even if you believe top-down is not as good as bottom-up, it's still better than your original parent comment, which explicitly mentioned no programming at all.
        misterman0 7y ago
        >> and now it's top-down vs. bottom-up You're right, it's a different topic entirely. I was trying to enforce the notion of the 8-bit architecture being superior to our current to beginners because of how easy it was to comprehend, even at the hardware level. Looking again at my kids, I'm starting to question my initial premise that everyone should learn programming. They seem to want to become either the best fruit market owner in the world or the next Zlatan.
- js2 7y ago
  What's to keep you from picking up a an Apple IIc on eBay?
  - bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
    I think buying an Apple ][ missed the point. I think misterman0 meant to say is not the specific issue of teaching his own children to write programs, but accessibility to programming in general (I invited my brother to play a text based adventure game [...] He was eight. I was still ten.), and how the low accessibility has buried many potentially talented children from exploring it by themselves (I have two kids now. 9 and 12. They are brighter than me. [...] My son started his YT channel at the age of 8. Mostly in game footage. He uses down pretty cool sw to edit his clips.).
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - js2 7y ago
      I was one of those kids with an Apple ][ and in fact I still own it. I thought about setting it up for my own kids (now 16 and 18) years ago to tinker with. But I realized that it wasn’t due to accessibility that they aren’t interested in programming. Times change and my things aren’t their things. If they wanted to program, there’s a lot of modern and accessible environments to start with. They had plenty of friends doing things like LEGO mindstorms or finding other ways to program. I realized they were no more interested in programming than learning how to change a spark plug when I tried to show them that. And it wasn’t because computing (like many other things) has become more complex. I’m not really even sure computing is less accessible now. Kids find a way.
- cbm-vic-20 7y ago
  There's still a little cottage industry of 6502 (and its successor, 65816) homebrew computers[1]. You can still buy them from electronics distributors[2]. There's also a very good Basic[3] available. Building one of these may be a good learning experience with kids. 1908s computers were way simpler, and with far fewer distractions than modern machines. [1] http://6502.org/homebuilt http://6502.org/homebuilt [2] https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Western-Design-Center-WDC/W65C02S6TPG-14?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtVFuKNr6IGvpdkwXR9vVB1 https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Western-Design-Center-W... [3] http://retro.hansotten.nl/lee-davison-web-site/enhanced-6502-basic/ http://retro.hansotten.nl/lee-davison-web-site/enhanced-6502...
andrewshadura 7y ago
To be completely fair, 8085 had nothing to do with it. 8085 was an advanced version of 8080.
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
  Good catch. I should be more careful next time...
fit2rule 7y ago
I think its more the removal of the compiler from a default installation that has killed programming for kids. If the major OS's still shipped with tools onboard (i.e. without requiring an additional install) that enabled development out of the box, the barrier to entry would be lower. As it is however, developer tools are a multi-billion dollar industry, and there is very definitely a desire by all the players in this space to milk it for every penny.
- MagicPropmaker 7y ago
  Windows ships with PowerShell which is a very capable programming language.
  - thwarted 7y ago
    PowerShell is a relatively recent default inclusion in Windows, and it's not marketed or thought of as "You can build your own games with it!" Bookstores used to be packed with things like "The Big Book of Computer Games" and magazines with program listings for interesting programs you'd type in (a task my mother and I shared). A blog/video series about using PowerShell for simple games would be pretty interesting. Windows default file editors aren't that great either. The C64's full screen editor was designed for entering and editing BASIC programs, very visually.
    - MagicPropmaker 7y ago
      I disagree. There are many books on programming in PowerShell and you can call into any .NET library from it, so you can certainly write games.
      - fit2rule 7y ago
        Got some examples?
        MagicPropmaker 7y ago
icedchai 7y ago
Blaming the processor doesn't make any sense. Early x86 / DOS machines were very accessible. They all shipped with BASIC. I'd say blame Windows. If Windows had shipped with the equivalent of GW-BASIC + extensions, we'd have a different discussion...
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
  > Blaming the processor doesn't make any sense. True, it doesn't. I've expressed this opinion in my further reply in the thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19953066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19953066, and suggested the cultural shift due to desktop computing is a better angle to view this issue. I said "you'd better to blame Intel 8086" rhetorically just to pointed out some historical background.
- tenebrisalietum 7y ago
  QBASIC.EXE was present in NT4. It was there until Win2K. I'm not sure if QBASIC was distributed with any 9x Windows.
  - icedchai 7y ago
    Good point... Though if I remember correctly, it still did not offer access to any Windows features. It was essentially a DOS app.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Crinus 7y ago
    It was on the Win95 (and i also think 98) CD in an "DOSUTILS" folder or something like that.
- kalleboo 7y ago
  > Early x86 / DOS machines were very accessible. They all shipped with BASIC Yep! The original IBM PC/XT machines came with BASIC in ROM. If you turned it on without a DOS floppy disk in it, it booted into BASIC instead. On early IBM PC clones (that omitted BASIC to save cost), instead of saying "no boot disk found" they would error out with "No ROM BASIC" The BIOS interrupt call 18h still exists to launch BASIC from ROM
eschaton 7y ago
I think you mean “6502 gave us desktop (micro)computers.” Most 8080 and then Z80 systems of the mid-1970s used S-100 and were oriented around a separation of CPU and I/O, i.e. “Just plug a surplus terminal or teletype into a serial port to use the computer!” It was really the 6502 and its use by the original “self-contained” Apple I that made desktop microcomputers a real product. Yes, buying an Apple I just you just got a board, but it was it intended to be put in a desktop case (and advertised that way) with a surplus keyboard and plugged into a TV, and could use audiocassette for storage. That made it way more approachable.

misterman0 7y ago

Thx for straightening me out. Ok, so let's blame 8085, 8086 or 8088. Or, we (as in I) can blame no one and instead, only realize there's no blame to manage. Anyway, I regret that we killed 6502. I hope my kids will pick up programming anyway. I think later in life they will feel crippled if they didn't.

bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
> Or, we (as in I) can blame no one and instead, only realize there's no blame to manage. I agree, I think the problem was not a particular microprocessor, but a greater cultural issue. At the end of home computer era, a PC has became someone's workbench, end users are not expected to learn and write programs anymore. There were bright sides, Xerox Alto, GUI, desktop publishing, multimedia, widely-available programs, no need to repeat those stories, we all know them. Meanwhile, accessibility to programming has largely been lost in this process. On second thought, it's not all black-and-white, some accessibility to programming still exists. On Unix-like systems, "python", "perl" is one command away, and even on Windows, JavaScript is one browser window away. If the next generation rewrites the computing history today, I wonder what tools/environment would be seen as the 21st century equivalent of 6502 and home computers. I'm sure it would have a dedicated chapter to Raspberry Pi and Arduino devboards at least.
- misterman0 7y ago
  >> even on Windows, JavaScript is one browser window away I have nothing but love for Bill Gates' software. I programmed my vic 20 using his BASIC. In my twenties I had no trouble picking up WINTEL + JS. But that's because I had already learnt what is computing. I had already realized what is a virtual machine and what is a "high-level language". When I try to explain to my kids the architecture that is today's computing I don't know where to start. Now I wish there where sprites. When I was ten I grasped the concept or sprites. There is a fair amount of cargo-culting in the following statement but I still believe in it: If we had maintained the 8-bit architecture and even 6502 as a "gateway drug", today, we would be much better off. Talent is hard to find, in my mind, because there is no longer a C64.
  - ronsor 7y ago
    It's not even that. You just need something simple to get started with that produces instant results and is built in to the computer. Ex: VBScript, bash, python, etc. You don't explain everything from scratch.
    - misterman0 7y ago
      You are suggesting, are you not, that top-down is as good as bottom-up? To that I disagree. I believe what caught my interest was the bottom-up approach that was the commodore manuals.
      - bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
        The original discussion was accessibility to programming, and now it's top-down vs. bottom-up programming, which is a different topic. But IMHO, even if you believe top-down is not as good as bottom-up, it's still better than your original parent comment, which explicitly mentioned no programming at all.
        misterman0 7y ago
        >> and now it's top-down vs. bottom-up You're right, it's a different topic entirely. I was trying to enforce the notion of the 8-bit architecture being superior to our current to beginners because of how easy it was to comprehend, even at the hardware level. Looking again at my kids, I'm starting to question my initial premise that everyone should learn programming. They seem to want to become either the best fruit market owner in the world or the next Zlatan.
js2 7y ago
What's to keep you from picking up a an Apple IIc on eBay?
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
  I think buying an Apple ][ missed the point. I think misterman0 meant to say is not the specific issue of teaching his own children to write programs, but accessibility to programming in general (I invited my brother to play a text based adventure game [...] He was eight. I was still ten.), and how the low accessibility has buried many potentially talented children from exploring it by themselves (I have two kids now. 9 and 12. They are brighter than me. [...] My son started his YT channel at the age of 8. Mostly in game footage. He uses down pretty cool sw to edit his clips.).
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - js2 7y ago
    I was one of those kids with an Apple ][ and in fact I still own it. I thought about setting it up for my own kids (now 16 and 18) years ago to tinker with. But I realized that it wasn’t due to accessibility that they aren’t interested in programming. Times change and my things aren’t their things. If they wanted to program, there’s a lot of modern and accessible environments to start with. They had plenty of friends doing things like LEGO mindstorms or finding other ways to program. I realized they were no more interested in programming than learning how to change a spark plug when I tried to show them that. And it wasn’t because computing (like many other things) has become more complex. I’m not really even sure computing is less accessible now. Kids find a way.
cbm-vic-20 7y ago
There's still a little cottage industry of 6502 (and its successor, 65816) homebrew computers[1]. You can still buy them from electronics distributors[2]. There's also a very good Basic[3] available. Building one of these may be a good learning experience with kids. 1908s computers were way simpler, and with far fewer distractions than modern machines. [1] http://6502.org/homebuilt http://6502.org/homebuilt [2] https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Western-Design-Center-WDC/W65C02S6TPG-14?qs=sGAEpiMZZMtVFuKNr6IGvpdkwXR9vVB1 https://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Western-Design-Center-W... [3] http://retro.hansotten.nl/lee-davison-web-site/enhanced-6502-basic/ http://retro.hansotten.nl/lee-davison-web-site/enhanced-6502...

andrewshadura 7y ago

To be completely fair, 8085 had nothing to do with it. 8085 was an advanced version of 8080.

bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
Good catch. I should be more careful next time...

fit2rule 7y ago

I think its more the removal of the compiler from a default installation that has killed programming for kids. If the major OS's still shipped with tools onboard (i.e. without requiring an additional install) that enabled development out of the box, the barrier to entry would be lower. As it is however, developer tools are a multi-billion dollar industry, and there is very definitely a desire by all the players in this space to milk it for every penny.

MagicPropmaker 7y ago
Windows ships with PowerShell which is a very capable programming language.
- thwarted 7y ago
  PowerShell is a relatively recent default inclusion in Windows, and it's not marketed or thought of as "You can build your own games with it!" Bookstores used to be packed with things like "The Big Book of Computer Games" and magazines with program listings for interesting programs you'd type in (a task my mother and I shared). A blog/video series about using PowerShell for simple games would be pretty interesting. Windows default file editors aren't that great either. The C64's full screen editor was designed for entering and editing BASIC programs, very visually.
  - MagicPropmaker 7y ago
    I disagree. There are many books on programming in PowerShell and you can call into any .NET library from it, so you can certainly write games.
    - fit2rule 7y ago
      Got some examples?
      - MagicPropmaker 7y ago

icedchai 7y ago

Blaming the processor doesn't make any sense. Early x86 / DOS machines were very accessible. They all shipped with BASIC. I'd say blame Windows. If Windows had shipped with the equivalent of GW-BASIC + extensions, we'd have a different discussion...

bcaa7f3a8bbc 7y ago
> Blaming the processor doesn't make any sense. True, it doesn't. I've expressed this opinion in my further reply in the thread, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19953066 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19953066, and suggested the cultural shift due to desktop computing is a better angle to view this issue. I said "you'd better to blame Intel 8086" rhetorically just to pointed out some historical background.
tenebrisalietum 7y ago
QBASIC.EXE was present in NT4. It was there until Win2K. I'm not sure if QBASIC was distributed with any 9x Windows.
- icedchai 7y ago
  Good point... Though if I remember correctly, it still did not offer access to any Windows features. It was essentially a DOS app.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Crinus 7y ago
  It was on the Win95 (and i also think 98) CD in an "DOSUTILS" folder or something like that.
kalleboo 7y ago
> Early x86 / DOS machines were very accessible. They all shipped with BASIC Yep! The original IBM PC/XT machines came with BASIC in ROM. If you turned it on without a DOS floppy disk in it, it booted into BASIC instead. On early IBM PC clones (that omitted BASIC to save cost), instead of saying "no boot disk found" they would error out with "No ROM BASIC" The BIOS interrupt call 18h still exists to launch BASIC from ROM

eschaton 7y ago

I think you mean “6502 gave us desktop (micro)computers.” Most 8080 and then Z80 systems of the mid-1970s used S-100 and were oriented around a separation of CPU and I/O, i.e. “Just plug a surplus terminal or teletype into a serial port to use the computer!” It was really the 6502 and its use by the original “self-contained” Apple I that made desktop microcomputers a real product. Yes, buying an Apple I just you just got a board, but it was it intended to be put in a desktop case (and advertised that way) with a surplus keyboard and plugged into a TV, and could use audiocassette for storage. That made it way more approachable.