4 ms·

I'm sure that children are going to be more interested in what they can create using programming rather than honing their computer science skills. The web and m

by ollysb 14y ago

I'm sure that children are going to be more interested in what they can create using programming rather than honing their computer science skills. The web and mobile provide great opportunities for children to play with programming and make something fun.

laacz 14y ago
There already are lots of alternatives, which do not include web or mobile, but are very illustrative for common programming related stuff. Off the top of my head there is an old language called LOGO [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language)]. I do not see need to tie imagination to web and/or mobile.
- ollysb 14y ago
  I sometimes make basic freeby sites for friends. Fully grown adults get really excited about having their own web page up on the net. I've got to admit I had fun with LOGO back in the day, but if I'd been able to manipulate the internet, now that would have been exciting...
- neurotech1 14y ago
  I remember LOGO on the MicroBee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroBee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroBee) at school, and BASIC was also available, I had a TRS-80 at home. It is a good foundation to 'programming' as opposed to a whole generation of kids in the 90s who learnt 'web design' with a WYSIWYG editor.
objclxt 14y ago
I sort of agree with you, and sort of don't. The web and mobile do provide fantastic opportunities for children to play with programming. However, I don't think the languages we use do. Bear in mind I'm talking about young children here - I believe the best approach is to provide ways to abstract away programming complexities (i.e, typing stuff) in the same way we abstract away other complex subjects. I'm a huge fan of Scratch, which is developed by the MIT Media Lab and is influenced by Logo (http://scratch.mit.edu/ http://scratch.mit.edu/) - it's a visual programming language, but one that's coupled with online sharing to encourage people to engage and respond to programs people have created.

by ollysb 14y ago

laacz 14y ago

There already are lots of alternatives, which do not include web or mobile, but are very illustrative for common programming related stuff. Off the top of my head there is an old language called LOGO [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_language)]. I do not see need to tie imagination to web and/or mobile.

ollysb 14y ago
I sometimes make basic freeby sites for friends. Fully grown adults get really excited about having their own web page up on the net. I've got to admit I had fun with LOGO back in the day, but if I'd been able to manipulate the internet, now that would have been exciting...
neurotech1 14y ago
I remember LOGO on the MicroBee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroBee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroBee) at school, and BASIC was also available, I had a TRS-80 at home. It is a good foundation to 'programming' as opposed to a whole generation of kids in the 90s who learnt 'web design' with a WYSIWYG editor.

objclxt 14y ago

I sort of agree with you, and sort of don't. The web and mobile do provide fantastic opportunities for children to play with programming. However, I don't think the languages we use do. Bear in mind I'm talking about young children here - I believe the best approach is to provide ways to abstract away programming complexities (i.e, typing stuff) in the same way we abstract away other complex subjects. I'm a huge fan of Scratch, which is developed by the MIT Media Lab and is influenced by Logo (http://scratch.mit.edu/ http://scratch.mit.edu/) - it's a visual programming language, but one that's coupled with online sharing to encourage people to engage and respond to programs people have created.