4 ms·

I don't think I can agree. I'm 29 and learned BASIC on an Apple II. While remembering what it was like makes me nostalgic for simpler times, I don't kid myself

I don't think I can agree. I'm 29 and learned BASIC on an Apple II. While remembering what it was like makes me nostalgic for simpler times, I don't kid myself. It sucked. I had to read out of scrappy library copies of Byte and Compute magazine. There were hours of trial and error. And worst of all, it all went away when you turned off the machine unless you had one of those notoriously unreliable tape machines. Contrast that to my first experiences with Linux nearly a decade later. I had man pages, Usenet, IRC, and the web; better hardware, an operating system, developer tools, and free compilers! I learned about Perl and dynamic languages (I was into C at the time). I slowly started learning about how operating systems worked. It was a far more conducive environment for learning. All of this information was right there on the computer. No more trudging down to the library or throwing away my money on thick technical manuals and trial-version compilers. I'd say modern FOSS computing environments are the most conducive to learning. The Apple II was a toy compared to what we have now.

apgwoz 16y ago
And, when you booted into GNU/Linux, you also had a web browser, chat programs, games, etc. The possibilities for distractions are numerous. Contrast that to a BASIC prompt. If you go to your computer to learn BASIC, as long as you are sitting in front of the computer and actively staring at it, you're either going to: a) get bored as hell by doing nothing b) type some stuff in from your magazine and execute (thereby learning "something" along the way because of typos, pattern recognition, etc. (of course you'll /then/ get distracted, but you had to work a bit) c) write a program from scratch by exploration, or need.
- reedlaw 16y ago
  If anyone wants to try something that approximates a computer that boots into a BASIC prompt, try AVR programming or Arduino. It's either C or assembler and you've got to use mainly reference manuals. Arduino has more resources and thus may be more prone to distraction.
  - enduser 16y ago
    Either of these require programming on a computer with web-browser, games, chat, etc. Programming embedded hardware does not solve the problem of working in a distracting environment. Self-discipline, determination, and perhaps other inner qualities are necessary and always have been.
- cicero 16y ago
  I think that was important for my actually learning to program circa 1978. If I was growing up today, it's very likely I would have been too distracted by all the other cool stuff I could do on the computer. I teach High School programming courses now, and that is something I have to battle.
- agentultra 16y ago
  For some value of conducive. Distraction is a human problem, not a technological one. You can just as easily use a type-writer instead of a computer to write your next novel in order to escape the distractions of twitter, wikipedia, et al. But you'll just find something else if you are prone to being distracted. I measure "conduciveness" differently. For me it's the distance between what I know now and what I want to know. When I was growing up and typing in programs on an Apple II, the gap was really large. Getting information was hard and came in at a trickle. Access to technology was pretty limited; I had what came with my computer and that was it for a long time. Conversely, modern *nix systems are largely self documented. There's no guess-work at what a particular C function does or how it is implemented; there's a man page for it. I have access to the complete source code of my operating system. If I want to learn anything, it's a few key-strokes away. Discipline is the cure to distraction. Not blunt tools.
mayank 16y ago
> I had to read out of scrappy library copies of Byte and Compute magazine. There were hours of trial and error. Funny, I look back on the same experience fondly, except it was assembly on an 8088. The "a-ha" moments were exhilirating.
amackera 16y ago
I learned to program on modern FOSS computing environments and I must say that I think a simpler, more constrained learning environment would have helped me out a lot. It's obviously dependent on the student's learning style, but having complete knowledge of a simple system is much better for me than working knowledge of a complex system.
colanderman 16y ago
Oh, you actually had an Apple II, my condolences :) The //e actually had disk drives (although I also had the tape deck experience thanks to a TI 99/4A). Anyway: > I had to read out of scrappy library copies of Byte and Compute magazine. There were hours of trial and error. That's a great way to build persistence. Many kids lack that skill. > All of this information was right there on the computer. No more trudging down to the library or throwing away my money on thick technical manuals and trial-version compilers. Mm, I remember library trips. Taught me how to actually look stuff up. I agree, when I first got Internet access, being able to download DJGPP changed my life. But on the //e, I learned how to reverse-engineer. Taught myself assembly by reading hex/assembly listings and via trial and error. I agree modern systems make it easier to learn. But the Apple //e made you learn.
- agentultra 16y ago
  Yeah, I grew up with second-hand everything. The school only had ICON machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisys_ICON http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisys_ICON). It wouldn't be until 93 or so when I'd finally set eyes on a 286 and it was 94 before I got my own 386. I still had that Apple II up until then (but the school had gotten rid of the ICON machines around 91 or so and acquired decent PCs... the school had better computers than I did!). I "programmed" then, but it was really just "punch it in and mess around with the values."

apgwoz 16y ago

And, when you booted into GNU/Linux, you also had a web browser, chat programs, games, etc. The possibilities for distractions are numerous. Contrast that to a BASIC prompt. If you go to your computer to learn BASIC, as long as you are sitting in front of the computer and actively staring at it, you're either going to: a) get bored as hell by doing nothing b) type some stuff in from your magazine and execute (thereby learning "something" along the way because of typos, pattern recognition, etc. (of course you'll /then/ get distracted, but you had to work a bit) c) write a program from scratch by exploration, or need.

reedlaw 16y ago
If anyone wants to try something that approximates a computer that boots into a BASIC prompt, try AVR programming or Arduino. It's either C or assembler and you've got to use mainly reference manuals. Arduino has more resources and thus may be more prone to distraction.
- enduser 16y ago
  Either of these require programming on a computer with web-browser, games, chat, etc. Programming embedded hardware does not solve the problem of working in a distracting environment. Self-discipline, determination, and perhaps other inner qualities are necessary and always have been.
cicero 16y ago
I think that was important for my actually learning to program circa 1978. If I was growing up today, it's very likely I would have been too distracted by all the other cool stuff I could do on the computer. I teach High School programming courses now, and that is something I have to battle.
agentultra 16y ago
For some value of conducive. Distraction is a human problem, not a technological one. You can just as easily use a type-writer instead of a computer to write your next novel in order to escape the distractions of twitter, wikipedia, et al. But you'll just find something else if you are prone to being distracted. I measure "conduciveness" differently. For me it's the distance between what I know now and what I want to know. When I was growing up and typing in programs on an Apple II, the gap was really large. Getting information was hard and came in at a trickle. Access to technology was pretty limited; I had what came with my computer and that was it for a long time. Conversely, modern *nix systems are largely self documented. There's no guess-work at what a particular C function does or how it is implemented; there's a man page for it. I have access to the complete source code of my operating system. If I want to learn anything, it's a few key-strokes away. Discipline is the cure to distraction. Not blunt tools.

mayank 16y ago

> I had to read out of scrappy library copies of Byte and Compute magazine. There were hours of trial and error. Funny, I look back on the same experience fondly, except it was assembly on an 8088. The "a-ha" moments were exhilirating.

amackera 16y ago

I learned to program on modern FOSS computing environments and I must say that I think a simpler, more constrained learning environment would have helped me out a lot. It's obviously dependent on the student's learning style, but having complete knowledge of a simple system is much better for me than working knowledge of a complex system.

colanderman 16y ago

Oh, you actually had an Apple II, my condolences :) The //e actually had disk drives (although I also had the tape deck experience thanks to a TI 99/4A). Anyway: > I had to read out of scrappy library copies of Byte and Compute magazine. There were hours of trial and error. That's a great way to build persistence. Many kids lack that skill. > All of this information was right there on the computer. No more trudging down to the library or throwing away my money on thick technical manuals and trial-version compilers. Mm, I remember library trips. Taught me how to actually look stuff up. I agree, when I first got Internet access, being able to download DJGPP changed my life. But on the //e, I learned how to reverse-engineer. Taught myself assembly by reading hex/assembly listings and via trial and error. I agree modern systems make it easier to learn. But the Apple //e made you learn.

agentultra 16y ago
Yeah, I grew up with second-hand everything. The school only had ICON machines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisys_ICON http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unisys_ICON). It wouldn't be until 93 or so when I'd finally set eyes on a 286 and it was 94 before I got my own 386. I still had that Apple II up until then (but the school had gotten rid of the ICON machines around 91 or so and acquired decent PCs... the school had better computers than I did!). I "programmed" then, but it was really just "punch it in and mess around with the values."