Re: OFF TOPIC -- Starter programming language for a brilliant child

[Miles Bader <miles@...>]

Greg Lewin <greg.lewin@gmail.com> writes:
> BASIC and assembler probably aren't the best use of anyone's time now
> though, not even for a beginner - BASIC was about the best (or most
> easily) available 30 years ago, there are many much much better
> options around now.

Yeah, and even 30 years ago, I think it was the _environments_ --
super direct, easy access to simple graphics, very little in the way
of details to worry about -- that were the "magic," not the language
they happened to use.

[I first learned programming in BASIC, but very quickly moved to Z-80
and 1802 assembler in high school.]

> BASIC is a very limited and limiting language, and may actually
> stunt one's growth as suggested by Dijkstra: (I think it really may
> have done mine)

Naw, he was just being snarky.  BASIC is certainly limiting for
writing more sophisticated programs, but the idea that it's going to
"stunt one's growth" is just silly, especially for kids.  Kids are
very flexible, and it's far more important to get them _doing stuff_
than to worry about the details; the details and kinks can be worked
out later.

I agree that smalltalk is a lovely language, and a great combination
of immediacy/flexibility/power, but the last time I tried squeak (~10
years ago?), the environment felt very clunky... has it improved since?

-miles

-- 
Saa, shall we dance?  (from a dance-class advertisement)