Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
I'll chime in as one of the dinosaurs. I learned BASIC on an old apple of some description when I was in high school in the mid-80s, and the value to me was in the nested logic of commands. I suck at math, I always have -- my wife remains appalled at my innumeracy and will be fielding all related questions from our children.
Regardless of the merits of BASIC from a coding standpoint, it allowed me to grasp logic that I wasn't absorbing in math class. (I spent most of my time "debugging" equations because I transpose numbers, and to this day remain baffled by anything other than basic arithmetic.)
However, before people feel free to weigh in on what a moron I am, here's the real benefit: while I didn't go down a coding path, having learnt the "soft" skill for structuring in a logical fashion, it has proven to be endlessly useful.
I have spent a lot of the last 10 years working on systems requirements and end-user testing for various consulting gigs, and while it may not be razzle-dazle work, you'd be amazed at the number of people who can't logically lay out a process, explain data relationships, develop Work break down structures, or execute testing plans that actually isolate problems so that they can be fixed.
I'm not going to claim that learning to number BASIC lines in increments of 10 to allow for additions downstream is what made me good at this, but it did far more for me in structuring thought than a lot of other educational experiences.
A number of people have indicated that too many CS students are doing high-end code without understanding the fundamentals. It's difficult - not impossible - to learn how to solve problems the hard way when that wasn't how you approached learning, and yet life's like that. We do a disservice to children and young adults by NOT making them do the difficult fundamentals.
Part of the problem is that the included language isn't easy enough. i.e. Ruby, Python, etc. are still not going to be as logical or close to the metal as Basic was. I learned basic when I was in TaG as a kid. It was a good jump start into programming. And now that's my career. I meandered into Biology and English literature in college, but I think that experience programming on the Commodore 64 and committing to tape definitely helped me to love to learn to tinker. So it wasn't a big jump for me to use Linux full time later in life when I started working as programmer.
Anyway, I think the point Mr. Brinn didn't make well enough, aside from the above, is that even if one of these languages were as easy as Basic, they're rarely included and never intrinsic to the operating of the machine, unless you're talking about Linux. On Windows you have to jump through hoops that most kids today just won't do. They'll spend all day customizing their MySpace page, but can't be bothered to even learn HTML, much less JavaScript, much less Ruby. It is sad, but I think it's a natural progression of the fact that users have become so abstracted from operating their computer to the point where it's a tool or an entertainment device or a news receptor, used to do things far far beyond strict "computing".
Someday as horsepower outstrips the computers we use today there will come a time where socialization and understanding the rules of business and communication are far more important than the actual programming. The language will be 4GL or 5GL and all the kids will need to know is how to communicate well enough or how to design for the end user. And as heavy consumers and avid socializers (using their computers), I think in a strange way they'll be uniquely placed to thrive in the programming environment of the future.
I agree that kids are missing something by not having a line-oreiented, interpreted language built-in. But QBASIC still runs under WinXP, and it's free and easy to get. (By the way, BASIC doesn't force you to write bad code; it doesn't randomly insert GOTO's - you have to put them there yourself...)
My son, 7, took an early and avid interest in computers and programming. In looking for resources for him, I have found that along with the decline of BASIC has been a decline in good introductory programming books for kids. There are some decent online tutorials (including Ted Felix's very good QBASIC tutorial: http://tedfelix.com/qbasic/index.html), but almost no good books. I'd like him to be able to try stuff on his own, but I'm not comfortable turning him loose on the Internet searching for programming tutorials. So a real, old-fashioned dead-trees book has some appeal. If you stick with BASIC, there are a lot of the old classics available. But if you want to use something more modern, the selection dwindles quickly.
He took "Creating Web Pages for Dummies" (not a kids book) out of the library and read it almost cover to cover. He experiments with HTML and JavaScript. He's also done a bit of QBASIC, KPL, and most recently Python (with PythonCard for GUI's).
I think Python is a good alternative as a ubiquitous, line-programming language. Apple now includes it, and it's easily downloadable for the other platforms. The syntax is pretty intuitive (e.g. "input" and "print"). Its interactive mode is great for both debugging and seeing how steps of an algorithm work (just like BASIC). With some great libraries (like PythonCard for GUIs and PyGame for sprite-graphics-type games), it gives the ability to go beyond text or moving dots around the screen, which is essential to hold kids' interest in today's multimedia world. One could do the "Pong excercise" in Python with Pygame quite nicely, and teach the math concepts involved without syntax or spaghetti code getting in the way.
I've actually started writing a book on programming for kids, using Python. But I'm not really qualified for that task (being neither an educator nor a software professional), and I don't know if that project will see the light of day. If I don't do it, I hope someone does, because there is definitely a need for something to help kids who show that spark of interest.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
