4 ms·

JS doesn't sound like a wise choice to me.

by zerostar07 15y ago

sequoia 15y ago
Yeah that's slightly disconcerting. I'm not a compsci expert, I know enough scripting to get by as a full-time web developer, but javascript seems like it has a lot of hard-to-grasp idioms that would be hell for a beginner. I've read The Good Parts and I still don't totally understand the intricacies of prototypal inheritance. :p I'd say stick with something a bit simpler, especially given that it's Khan Academy, not Stanford, so it's likely to attract far more casual lay-users who just want to know "a little bit about programming." The casual nature of the engagement means there is probably a very low threshold for quitting if the program is resulting in more confusion/frustration than "aha moments." I think it's great they're doing it, tho! More people should learn "a little bit about programming."
- lukev 15y ago
  Prototypal inheritance isn't inherently more complicated than what we're used to. Familiarity is not the same as simplicity. In fact, it may be what holds us back from genuinely better paradigms.
  - anonymoushn 15y ago
    Indeed. I find it a bit odd that prototypal inheritance (in some more powerful form than JS's) isn't the normal way of doing OO in scripting languages.
fredoliveira 15y ago
Interesting. Care to elaborate on why? Because it seems like a perfect fit.
pjscott 15y ago
It has a very low barrier to entry, and it's not a bad first language. Also, while this has nothing to do with JavaScript per se, I'm reluctant to bet against John Resig.
- vegai 15y ago
  Come on, it's the Basic of this decade.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    Exactly. Just think how many people got started programming because BASIC was right there, and easy to get started with. JavaScript is a strictly better language, and I would bet that the Khan Academy guys are planning to make JS as instantly rewarding as BASIC was back in ancient times.

4 ms·

JS doesn't sound like a wise choice to me.

by zerostar07 15y ago

JS doesn't sound like a wise choice to me.

sequoia 15y ago
Yeah that's slightly disconcerting. I'm not a compsci expert, I know enough scripting to get by as a full-time web developer, but javascript seems like it has a lot of hard-to-grasp idioms that would be hell for a beginner. I've read The Good Parts and I still don't totally understand the intricacies of prototypal inheritance. :p I'd say stick with something a bit simpler, especially given that it's Khan Academy, not Stanford, so it's likely to attract far more casual lay-users who just want to know "a little bit about programming." The casual nature of the engagement means there is probably a very low threshold for quitting if the program is resulting in more confusion/frustration than "aha moments." I think it's great they're doing it, tho! More people should learn "a little bit about programming."
- lukev 15y ago
  Prototypal inheritance isn't inherently more complicated than what we're used to. Familiarity is not the same as simplicity. In fact, it may be what holds us back from genuinely better paradigms.
  - anonymoushn 15y ago
    Indeed. I find it a bit odd that prototypal inheritance (in some more powerful form than JS's) isn't the normal way of doing OO in scripting languages.
fredoliveira 15y ago
Interesting. Care to elaborate on why? Because it seems like a perfect fit.
pjscott 15y ago
It has a very low barrier to entry, and it's not a bad first language. Also, while this has nothing to do with JavaScript per se, I'm reluctant to bet against John Resig.
- vegai 15y ago
  Come on, it's the Basic of this decade.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    Exactly. Just think how many people got started programming because BASIC was right there, and easy to get started with. JavaScript is a strictly better language, and I would bet that the Khan Academy guys are planning to make JS as instantly rewarding as BASIC was back in ancient times.