> The whole point of the discussion around computer and computer languages/systems as tool for thought, is presuming that computing can be another form of mass

> The whole point of the discussion around computer and computer languages/systems as tool for thought, is presuming that computing can be another form of mass literacy. Let's also not get into whether this should be the case (and my opinion here is less naive that one might think); I'm just saying that this is the debate. Exactly right. The Jobs line is a half-baked and perhaps half-understood take on the thinking of people like Kay, Papert, et al. Anyone curious about this line of thinking -- which has fallen way, way out of the popular computing discourse -- might want to check out Andrea diSessa's "Changing Minds" for a decent summary.