I agree with various letters that BASIC is a terrible language to learn programming from, and no one should be encouraged to do so. But trying out a 5-line math algorithm isn't really "programming," and command-line interpreted BASIC allows a student to get an initial exposure to algorithms with essentially no training. I'm sure some will say that this will poison the student's mind. Actually math algorithms in books are rarely "structured" like a modern computer language but are full of "if a < b, then go to step 7." Look at the classic in the field, Knuth's Art of Computer Programming, for example. BASIC often can let the student see clearly the relationship between the book's algorithm and the code, which might be obscured with a structured, object-oriented language.

There are simple BASIC interpreters written in JavaScript which you can run in your browser, for simple "Try this in BASIC" problems in textbooks. I don't endorse any specific one, but the first Google hit was http://www.eder.us/projects/jbasic/ and there are probably others. No downloads, no installation - just go to the site and start typing!

I too learned Basic when I was a kid. When in college I was unfortunate enough to learn Modula II and other crappy "learning" languages. Fortunately, I soon learned Visual Basic and Web systems. This is what really inspired me to program. Today I make my living as a consultant, going from company to company fixing the bad, line-oriented code written by people who still think Basic and Cobol programming is how it all works, even in Visual Basic.

As others have mentioned, HTML, DHTML, VBScript, Javascript and more are all available for free on every computer with a browser. I'm surprised someone who claims to be at the forefront of the computer revolution doesn't know this. Also that you claim to be part of the "creative spasm" and don't have a programming environment available for your kid.

In addition, Microsoft Word, Excel, etc... come with VBA, which is for all intents and purposes, a learning environment for Visual Basic. You can learn many of the basics using any of these at least as well as you could using the old BASIC.

However, if you insist on your kid learnng BASIC (and I'm sure that when he grows up, I or others like me, will be removing the GOTO statements from his Object Oriented modules), why don't you get some of the Popular Mechanics magazines from the late 60s through the early 80s and make him build his own computer? Sure, he'll have to program it at the very lowest level and at best he'll end up with a rudimentary calculator, but think of how much he'll learn about the "nuts and bolts"

Learning assembley language is what really taught me about computers. Even though I learned on a PC running MS, it could've been a PC running Linux or a MAC. Learning Assembly was like a history lesson for CPUs and OS's - in my case MS - there's still DOS interupts way down in low memory - vector tables that let you access all areas of memory - the real controllers of any system. And to be able to access the CPU directly - and watch in debugger as the program runs and the registers change (or do't) - this is the stuff that links computers from 30 years ago to those in use today.

I used basic as a kid - and I wish I had stayed the course with it, but it seems archaic by today's standards, while learning assembly not only teaches you the real nuts and bolts of computer programming, forcing you to think about optimal code and heavy commenting - it's still practical for today's high-level programmers: tweaking and optimizing bits of code to conserve memory.

I learned programming toggling levers on a PDP8 to manually turn each bit on or off, 0 or 1. I could say the same about that experience being more valuable than basic. Or assembly or anything else.

This is just foolish nostalgia.

If you want a language that is almost universally available and simple, then look at javascript or PHP.

I agree wholeheartedly with this article, I was struggling to find a language to teach my son, but then I stumbled upon KPL (Kids Programming Language) see http://www.kidsprogramminglanguage.com/ for full info.

This is an excellent language, simple to use, FREE!, and very similar syntax to modern c#/vb.net(it is .net based) the thing that really hooked us was the fact that with a minimum of simple code you can have sprites (ufo's, planes etc) flying all over the screen, instant gratification for my son!

Theres also a version 2 in the pipeline which offeres 3D graphics and access to the entire .NET framework.

How about bring the younger generation off of the couch / from in front of the computer to interacting with the Physical World? Try working through some projects in Make Magazine (www.makezine.com). They have microcontrollers in there where you can work with simple algorithms and math, but they also have cool Biology projects, or hacking projects.

Tinkering, taking apart radios, looking at open-sourced code. All of these mechanical, digital, and biological dissections are what have inspired the young in past generations. It's only more exciting now, because all of these "Sciences" are available to us in cheap home-brew projects.

I agree with the author on most of his points. I learned programming with basic when I was about 13, back around '93 or so. Hours of fun and obsession with programming followed. A year or two later I moved on, but not before creating all those pong, breakout, etc. games in basic and loving it.

I used qbasic, which used to come standard with DOS back then. It took me about 20 seconds to find a site with the qbasic download. I downloaded it and ran it: it's one .exe file if you don't count the help file. It provides and environment to do line by line basic and then even move into subs and functions when one is ready. You can create, run, and even debug the program in one place. Perfect for learning the basic building blocks of coding. True, it's not longer included as standard on today's machines which is a shame since the whole program is about 300k, but it's still accessible to those that want it.

So as far as the argument that you couldn't find a simple way to program in basic goes, it's simply not true. Qbasic's been around for years. It worked for me when I was 13. I don't see why anything would change now--the software sure hasn't.