Letters to the Editor
-
Robotics
The basic stamp mentioned in the article is still available and a workhorse of amateur robotics. Robotics is right now atr the stage where computing was in the late seventies, early eighties. (The roomba, Sony Aibo etc... and their spinoffs are being taken apart and modified just like computers were 30 years ago. They are quite often seen as toys just like my commodore 64 was. Also Robots have been in use for about 30 years on an industrial scale just like computers were 30 years ago.)
While I agree with Mr. Brin that a good, easy, line interpreted language is hard to find (Although there are still quite a lot of free basic interpreters around); The article strikes me as a bit technologically reactionary. I have taught myself to cast aluminum, use a lathe, use a mill etc... Do I expect that from other people interested in robotics? No: Get some Lego mindstorms, or a basic stamp and a decent electronics book ('BeBop to the boolean boogie' comes to mind) and off you go.
What is unique about modern times is the easy access to vast amounts of knowledge. As a kid I spent a LOT of time in libraries and looked into all kinds of fascinating stuff, sometimes how to make stuff, sometimes how stuff worked. I would have to order books and wait weeks to get them etc... Now the most esoteric interests can be googled and fellow enthusiasts can be found. I believe the value of that is tremendous. It goes with my firm belief in education: We don't need so much education as everyone is panicky about in this country: Teach a child to read, write and some basic math: Everything else the child is interested in can be picked up by going to a library or talking to similarly interested paople.
I am not worried about the decline of American technological advantage. It was never there. Individuals not countries or cultures are the creators of great stuff. Create an environemnt where those people want to live and it will all work out.
If you get one thing out of this letter: Get some Lego mindstorms: Simple, great fun and the beginning of the next revolution.
Hajo Smulders
-
Try Turbo Delphi
Well I've started my programming with Turno Pascal. I also tried BASIC, but IMHO Pascal is way better for learning because it is somehow simplier and better sticks to hardware (inline assembler, ability to work directly with memory, ports and so on). And right now Turbo Delphi released by Borland. It is free and my beloved Pascal is right there inside. Of course first look at its RAD IDE will confuse, but just try to create console application! And there's our plain Pascal! Line-by-line! Just like in... Khm... Long time ago :)
P.S. Sorry for my English - non-native.
-
No need to spend $25 for a C64...
Use a web-based C64 emulator: http://codeazur.com.br/stuff/fc64_final/
-
WHY JOHNNY CAN'T CODE
So very much enjoyed this article, and some of the enjoyment was in recalling
our first company computers; Rainbow 100's. I am still computer illeterate,
however, I know that the tasks I accomplished with the Rainbow were so very
much easier than the same job with Windows XP. Come back, BASIC, you are
missed.
Ann Wood
-
Some versions of BASIC ....
While I have not used these myself, as I have moved past BASIC to scripted languages, I did some quick Googling and came across two possible incarnations of OLD BASIC, not a newly created one.
One place to begin searching is the Wikipedia page on BASIC.
For Unix, there is Bas, a BASIC interpreter. It alleges to be compatible with the BASICs of the 1980s. I have not tried to use this myself.
In order to use it, you would likely need a Linux/Unix or Mac machine. You would also have to compile it. (It is written in ANSI C.)
It should, theoretically, compile on those three systems (at first blush).
There is also Chipmunk BASIC for the Mac. It is allegedly like the older BASICs as well.
Bas -- BASIC Interpreter
http://www.moria.de/~michael/bas/
Chipmunk BASIC
http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/basic/
Hope this helps. I have many fond memories of GOTOs and Returns myself.
Sincerely,
John Nelson
-
GW Basic
you can find it there:
http://www.geocities.com/KindlyRat/GWBASIC.html
runs in Windows XP, no problem.
=jfb
-
Separation of concerns
I'm completely sympathetic: the kids are inundated with tons of games and activities, while the world has a severe deficit in the area of learning computing.
I am one passionate about software, and dedicated to increasingly higher levels of abstraction for layered software architectures, but shouldn't the kids start out at the board and chip level with assembler languages?
Granted, most assemblers are too complex.
Don Knuth's MIX and MMIX come to mind as ideals.
And then ARM as a real world practicality, although locked up in commercial access only (unless you rip one out of an old cell phone or router).
But there are alternatives, a variety of "Stamp" chips.
The world of stamp dev boards may be the best place for putting kids today.
And then there are sites (magazines?) with "radio shack" parts lists for similar things.
It's not five minutes to get him going on his own. But should it be?
-
Basic Development Environment Needed
I totally agree with your basic premise that today's kids need a good, simple development environment - provided by BASIC in our day (the '80s for me, at least). I was programming a TI99-4A (with a tape drive) in 1979 when I was only eight. By 1983, when I was in 6th grade, my father had the foresight (or maybe just dumb luck) to provide me with an IBM-PC with BASIC ROM - or better, BASICA if I decided to boot with the MS-DOS V1.1 5-1/2" floppy. I had a big bulky IBM BASIC manual that described all the syntax much like a UNIX man page. When I programmed arrays I developed basic working knowledge of vector and matrix algebra; when I wrote the code itself I learned basic algorithms, structure, and logic. By 8th grade I knew my work would involve writing code.
Where did it get me? I'm now a PhD Mechanical Engineer who uses perl, C, and (shudder) FORTRAN 90 daily to perform tasks from the very arcane to the next-to-impossible without code – occasionally in a UNIX environment, no less. I feel like one of the few engineers around that has the capability to write code to perform analysis. Code helps not just with numerical and analytic work but with data collection and analysis aspects of experimental research. In other words, automation can help anything.
As an educator, I see the next generation (those 10yrs younger than me or more) coming into engineering school without knowledge of the basic skill to perform numerical analysis: being able to write code. They are typically afraid of a command line too, although you can often get more done there than within a GUI. It is a shame - but maybe I'm just an old grouch? I think these skills are still very useful. I still have qbasic tucked away on a tape somewhere, and when my daughter is old enough to use a computer, she’s going to have to learn it the way I did. Maybe she'll get a Linux box first. ;)