3 ms·
I agree with this sentiment. We don't need new, simpler languages to teach programming concepts; we just need a better approach to teaching. We don't skip teach
by keithb- 11y ago
I agree with this sentiment. We don't need new, simpler languages to teach programming concepts; we just need a better approach to teaching. We don't skip teaching the English language to toddlers in favor of a simpler one. I learn "cat" before "encyclopedia" and "hungry" before "enlightened". Programming languages have similar levels of abstraction so one can start with basics and allow the growth/understanding/grok to come from exploring the depths of abstraction inherent within.
I think the intention here is to somehow reach a point where the understanding is complete. As if one can say "There, now I understand all of [insert programming language]." and tick off some item on their career progression or bucket list. It's simply not like that.
- keithpeter 11y ago"We don't skip teaching the English language to toddlers in favor of a simpler one." Well, they used to for a bit in the UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_Teaching_Alphabet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_Teaching_Alphabet as a result of which I still (5 decades later) sometimes have to stop and think about the spelling of quite routine words. So I agree - toddlers get a subset with a restricted vocabulary and simple grammar but one that is actually a subset of English. Now - if I wanted to learn enough Javascript/CSS/Canvas stuff to make a series of 'drag-gable diagrams' for use on an interactive whiteboard (e.g. area of trapezium or pythagoras' result) where shall I start? I have the head first book and I sort of like their approach.