4 ms·

Unfortunately this tradition of including a beginner-friendly programming language with the OS stopped somewhere in the nineties. Under DOS, there was GW-BASIC

by rob74 5y ago

Unfortunately this tradition of including a beginner-friendly programming language with the OS stopped somewhere in the nineties. Under DOS, there was GW-BASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW-BASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW-BASIC), the Amiga had AmigaBASIC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaBASIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmigaBASIC - which however did not support the full range of multimedia features, and was only available until AmigaOS 1.3), but Windows 3.1 didn't include a programming language anymore. Arguably smartphones and tablets have increased this barrier of entry even further, because you need a separate PC/Mac to develop software for them.

eadmund 5y ago
> Unfortunately this tradition of including a beginner-friendly programming language with the OS stopped somewhere in the nineties. It was earlier than that: it was in 1984 that the Macintosh shipped without any built-in programming capability. Indeed, if I remember correctly for a time there weren't any programming tools available for it at first; one had to develop on a Lisa instead. At the time, I was so enthralled by how easy the Mac was to use that it never occurred to me that it was painful to extend. Oddly enough, that same characteristic is just as true today, perhaps moreso.
- twmiller 5y ago
  I don’t think the modern mac is any more (or less) difficult to extend than windows or linux…
  - eru 5y ago
    Well, since the operating system itself is not quite as open, it's harder to extent than Linux. But perhaps comparable to Windows. Ie these days writing programs is on all three platforms, but on Linux you are on the same level of access as any other kernel developer.
eru 5y ago
Later MS-DOS (and even Windows 95?) had QBasic, one of my first forays into programming. If I remember right, Microsoft had even translated the built-in manual into my native language.
- dusted 5y ago
  I can't recall qb being in the win95 distribution, but I remember pulling it over from dos floppies and spent a lot of time with it. However, it was "hidden away" you needed to first get this idea into your head that there was even a possibility to program the computer, and then you had to find out how to get a program that allowed you to do so. What was so powerful about that c64 boot screen was that you couldn't miss that fact, it was not something "extra" that had to be done, from bootup, programming WAS the computing experience, even if the only program you ever wrote was a one-line program with the LOAD statement :)
  - eru 5y ago
    Yes, definitely. Though CMD.COM and .bat files in DOS and Windows could theoretically also be used to program. But that was less obvious than on the C=64, and not even as obvious as Linux bash scripting being a possibility when you first login.
    - dusted 5y ago
      Absolutely, I remember trying to make a text adventure game in .bat files (I didn't get far though). I am fond of bash, even if it's universially loathed as a programming language, it can get a reasonable amount of work done, and it's right there, in your terminal :)
      - eru 5y ago
        Bash ain't great, but it's heaven compared to eg GNU Make.

by rob74 5y ago

eadmund 5y ago

> Unfortunately this tradition of including a beginner-friendly programming language with the OS stopped somewhere in the nineties. It was earlier than that: it was in 1984 that the Macintosh shipped without any built-in programming capability. Indeed, if I remember correctly for a time there weren't any programming tools available for it at first; one had to develop on a Lisa instead. At the time, I was so enthralled by how easy the Mac was to use that it never occurred to me that it was painful to extend. Oddly enough, that same characteristic is just as true today, perhaps moreso.

twmiller 5y ago
I don’t think the modern mac is any more (or less) difficult to extend than windows or linux…
- eru 5y ago
  Well, since the operating system itself is not quite as open, it's harder to extent than Linux. But perhaps comparable to Windows. Ie these days writing programs is on all three platforms, but on Linux you are on the same level of access as any other kernel developer.

eru 5y ago

Later MS-DOS (and even Windows 95?) had QBasic, one of my first forays into programming. If I remember right, Microsoft had even translated the built-in manual into my native language.

dusted 5y ago
I can't recall qb being in the win95 distribution, but I remember pulling it over from dos floppies and spent a lot of time with it. However, it was "hidden away" you needed to first get this idea into your head that there was even a possibility to program the computer, and then you had to find out how to get a program that allowed you to do so. What was so powerful about that c64 boot screen was that you couldn't miss that fact, it was not something "extra" that had to be done, from bootup, programming WAS the computing experience, even if the only program you ever wrote was a one-line program with the LOAD statement :)
- eru 5y ago
  Yes, definitely. Though CMD.COM and .bat files in DOS and Windows could theoretically also be used to program. But that was less obvious than on the C=64, and not even as obvious as Linux bash scripting being a possibility when you first login.
  - dusted 5y ago
    Absolutely, I remember trying to make a text adventure game in .bat files (I didn't get far though). I am fond of bash, even if it's universially loathed as a programming language, it can get a reasonable amount of work done, and it's right there, in your terminal :)
    - eru 5y ago
      Bash ain't great, but it's heaven compared to eg GNU Make.