Codecademy vs. the BBC Micro

Only just in 40s here so I was a bit late for the TV programs, but the Acorn computers (Micros and Master Series on trollies in school, and an Electron then later a Master at home) are essentially why I've ended up as a senior-developer-come-DBA.

A large part of that is BBC Basic. Compared to anything else available at home at the time it was magical. Instantly accessible (10 PRINT "Expletive" 20 GOTO 10), had proper sub-procedures & functions and long identifier names (so you could create usefully structured code), build-in multi-pass assembler for when you started to need/want lower level access, many of BASIC's parts could be accessed in a documented manner from assembled code too and not just those where it was providing a thin wrapper around other ROM functions, ...

That and many type-in examples in magazines of the time to try, learn from and modify: from "frivolous" one-liners (usually producing something pretty on screen), through little "ten liner" games and other demos, to much larger projects. Heck, they fuelled some of my interest in mathematics too as those examples sometimes explored concepts such as fractals, strange attractors, 3D transforms, and so on, while making the pretty display (the explanations were fairly superficial, but usually had the right keywords for me to go lookup more detail in the library when my interest was awoken).

First of all, the article is right in opining that the pathways to computer literacy in general, and programming in particular, are not really all that accessible anymore. The problem becomes even worse due to the sheer number of "teaching" tools available. My friend had trouble even finding the right setting. It would have to be a device or an environment that seems relevant and recognizable to the kid, yet at the same time it must be approachable, well documented, didactically meaningful, and entertaining in a way that would motivate someone who could just play any game instead of making one.

Second, being a tech-illiterate kid today is not a pain point anymore. Devices, apps, and entertainment media are easy enough for anybody to use. Kids are, somewhat reasonably, asking why they should spend any energy on this, to what end?

At first I thought this was a problem. One of my friend's kids quit before the effort started essentially saying "this seems boring, why do I need this?" and the other quit after the first introduction with "nah, I'd rather do something else". I think this is actually fine. It has always been the case that being interested in computers came easier to social outcasts, and kids who had a genuine internal motivation towards technology. The web start up bubble may have skewed this perception for a time, because suddenly there was a lot of money accessible even for people with at best a passing interest in programming. But those days are petering out.

Computing never had a broad appeal, except during short fads. I don't think we need more people in computing and programming. If anything, we need less, because the job market for programmers is likely not going to get better.

Finally, I question whether there is an upside to teaching computing to kids who don't feel a connection to it. I actually agree with my friend's kids here: for what? Using software is as easy and productive as never before. Yes, being a programmer, I see the glaring issues in today's software, but if we're honest we have gained a lot more than we lost in terms of what the "unskilled" user can do.

By the time I left primary school, we had three or four!

In primary one, I remember some very simple `cat and mouse' game.

Later on, a text adventure game, possibly something to do with a frog. And then Granny's Garden, and The Flowers of Crystal.

At some point, I got permission to basically mess around on one during some lunchtimes.

There is so much more I could say!