4 ms·

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 w

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.
Crinus 7y ago
A lot of people who learned programming in the home computer era learned through BASIC which was already a very high level language (well, except perhaps the C64 one which was kinda crippled, but that was an exception), often with graphics commands to draw lines, circles, etc, play sounds, do color, etc. Some of them went on to learn assembly, but that came later, after they got their feet wet with the high level BASIC. This isn't any different than someone learning -say- Python or JS today and then moving on to C or C++. If anything, i know artists in the game industry who started learning Python to automate some stuff in their workflow and then slowly started using C# and C++ (often such people end up as "technical artists" in bigger teams, which is an in-between artists and graphics programmers, implementing high level systems for artists and designers on top of the low level systems graphics programmers provide).

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.

Crinus 7y ago

A lot of people who learned programming in the home computer era learned through BASIC which was already a very high level language (well, except perhaps the C64 one which was kinda crippled, but that was an exception), often with graphics commands to draw lines, circles, etc, play sounds, do color, etc. Some of them went on to learn assembly, but that came later, after they got their feet wet with the high level BASIC. This isn't any different than someone learning -say- Python or JS today and then moving on to C or C++. If anything, i know artists in the game industry who started learning Python to automate some stuff in their workflow and then slowly started using C# and C++ (often such people end up as "technical artists" in bigger teams, which is an in-between artists and graphics programmers, implementing high level systems for artists and designers on top of the low level systems graphics programmers provide).