3 ms·

So it's essentially a physical version of the puzzle game Light Bot[1]. I can definitely see this being an approachable toy, and it does encourage the kind of v

So it's essentially a physical version of the puzzle game Light Bot[1]. I can definitely see this being an approachable toy, and it does encourage the kind of visualization and sequential reasoning that underlies programming. That said, with such a limited number and variety of instructions (Looks like a 12-step program with the opportunity for a single 4-step subroutine) I don't see much potential for teaching about abstraction and reuse, and I think children will reach the limits of the toy very quickly. Given that you're already committed to putting this into production, are you actually looking for critical feedback or are you simply trying to raise awareness? [1] http://armorgames.com/play/2205/light-bot http://armorgames.com/play/2205/light-bot

fyacob 13y ago
No, genuinely trying to get some debate going. We have debated upgrades for a while now at the Arduino head office in Torino where we work. We thought of tapping into the endless wisdom of the HN community for a fresh perspective. The learning curve plateaus eventually, but it's also about experimenting control within new environments, "go around mommy's feet" "circle the kitchen counter". In it's basic form no numeracy or literacy is required to approach Primo. This is key, but what do you suggest a suitable upgrade should be bearing this in mind? We have a Primo 2.0 for schools in R&D right now that will allow for multi play (or super hog play) by controlling several vehicles from the same board. what you think about that?
- RodgerTheGreat 13y ago
  I see where you're going with taking the toy into different environments to produce varied challenges. Controlling multiple vehicles at once could be interesting- I'm reminded of tool-assisted speedruns in which a single set of gamepad inputs are used to complete different games simultaneously. You could create obstacle courses where the same program will help all the robots get out. From the perspective of learning about abstraction and code reuse, I think having a single function definition that can only be four instructions long is very limiting. If you had more (even just a second one) you'd have many more ways of combining them together- they could be chained, they could call one another, etc- and thus more ways to try breaking down problems. Breaking tasks down into smaller subtasks is, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental concepts in programming, and your toy can teach this idea. From a totally different angle, have you thought about adding a crayon/marker mount to the car so that kids can lay out a big piece of paper and then have a visual record of their trial-and-error progress? Thinking about the toy as a sort of creative tool, if the kids had some ability to turn the overall program into a repetitive loop rather than just a sequence you could do some neat spyrograph style stuff. Maybe add a toggle switch to enable that?

fyacob 13y ago

No, genuinely trying to get some debate going. We have debated upgrades for a while now at the Arduino head office in Torino where we work. We thought of tapping into the endless wisdom of the HN community for a fresh perspective. The learning curve plateaus eventually, but it's also about experimenting control within new environments, "go around mommy's feet" "circle the kitchen counter". In it's basic form no numeracy or literacy is required to approach Primo. This is key, but what do you suggest a suitable upgrade should be bearing this in mind? We have a Primo 2.0 for schools in R&D right now that will allow for multi play (or super hog play) by controlling several vehicles from the same board. what you think about that?

RodgerTheGreat 13y ago
I see where you're going with taking the toy into different environments to produce varied challenges. Controlling multiple vehicles at once could be interesting- I'm reminded of tool-assisted speedruns in which a single set of gamepad inputs are used to complete different games simultaneously. You could create obstacle courses where the same program will help all the robots get out. From the perspective of learning about abstraction and code reuse, I think having a single function definition that can only be four instructions long is very limiting. If you had more (even just a second one) you'd have many more ways of combining them together- they could be chained, they could call one another, etc- and thus more ways to try breaking down problems. Breaking tasks down into smaller subtasks is, in my opinion, one of the most fundamental concepts in programming, and your toy can teach this idea. From a totally different angle, have you thought about adding a crayon/marker mount to the car so that kids can lay out a big piece of paper and then have a visual record of their trial-and-error progress? Thinking about the toy as a sort of creative tool, if the kids had some ability to turn the overall program into a repetitive loop rather than just a sequence you could do some neat spyrograph style stuff. Maybe add a toggle switch to enable that?