Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computing is too easy

aeon.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: Computing is too easy

#51

Post by emilng »

I started out programming with a Commodore 64 and having instant access to BASIC when I turned on the machine was really awesome. As a professional developer now, I appreciate the low level knowledge that learning on the C64 provided, but the more important thing was low barrier of entry to development tools.

There is a currently a very low barrier of entry access point for programming on everyone's computers currently in the form of the web browser. You can view the source for any web page and change things around in the dev tools and console.

Too many people yearn for the good old days of low level access yet are quick to dismiss Javascript as "toy" language. In the old days BASIC was just a toy too. The "real" programmers wrote their code in assembly.

Re: Computing is too easy

#52

Post by cafard »

shiggerino wrote: post #38
jeremysmyth wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...which suggests that computing is not too easy at all, as per grandparent comment. See also http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm... : During my first Microsoft internship, I wrote string libraries to run on the Macintosh... Everything I did was right from K&R -- one thin book about the C programming language. Today, to work on CityDesk, I need to know Visual Basic, COM, ATL, C++, InnoSetup,…

This is why Common Lisp is such a godsend for me. It covers a much wider gamut from low to high level than most languages. The Lisp Machines were really on to something, users didn't really have to know a lot of languages or competing systems. They also ensured good access to documentation. This is also two areas where the Macintosh failed (perhaps intentionally). Though Hypercard was extensible through XCMDs and XFC…

What was the price of a Macintosh, though, compared to that of a Lisp Machine?

Re: Computing is too easy

#53

Post by 300bps »

klez wrote: post #28
300bps wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is solid, but your experience with Scratch is different than mine. My 10 year old son had very little interest in Scratch. I'm not entirely sure of the reason for this but I think it is related to: 1) It was hard to distribute his creations 2) Lack of natural aptitude / ability 3) Too easy to consume without producing We had a little more success with Construct 2. The main difference being that the games c…

May I suggest that you're starting from the premise that your kid is willing/able to learn programming and that programming is for everyone? As your parent suggested, not everyone who had computers back than had or felt the need to program them.

May I suggest that you're starting from the premise that your kid is willing/able to learn programming

That is precisely why I put #2 in my list.

Re: Computing is too easy

#54

Post by jimmaswell »

prottmann wrote: post #26
jimmaswell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I need a search tool to find my installed programs and settings. as if simply typing the name of or keywords for what you want to find into a search bar isn't fluid and inuitive?

And if you not know the exactly name? Example i type "browser" -> nothing found. And i am absolutely sure i have installed chrome, seamonkey and ie. ;)

That's why the applications are supposed to have relevant tags that are looked at by the search.

Re: Computing is too easy

#55

Post by jimmaswell »

Gracana wrote: post #25
jimmaswell wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I need a search tool to find my installed programs and settings. as if simply typing the name of or keywords for what you want to find into a search bar isn't fluid and inuitive?

Assuming that you know the name of your volume manager is "gigolo" and that your remote desktop client is "remmina," etc. If you're lucky the program might have a reasonable name, but still your OS decides the most likely thing you're looking for is ancient manuscripts... http://i.imgur.com/0ePB9sT.png

You still found "Printers" which is probably it.

Re: Computing is too easy

#56

Post by baldfat »

sthreet wrote: post #33
baldfat wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also agree. Today we need people who can miss the forest for the trees! I can't believe the lack of basic computer skills that people have coming into the workforce and someone that can use Word is considered a computer person. Even the new IT people only know GUI and Microsoft with no experience with Mac OS or Linux, and no idea about anything but the silo they are working in. I was one of those kids who had to pr…

Time to complain about my school. Our "computer" classes consisted of learning to: type, format word, type in a spreadsheet, format powerpoint (in a way that I think powerpoint is unnecessary for), one week total of messing around in garage band, one week of typing out the exact lines of html, copying instructions for dreamweaver. EDIT: And then we do 'job' stuff in that class. Including making resumes that include o…

It is time to put the science back into Computer Science and have it in Middle School and High School. My school district computer classes are business classes and the teachers need business degrees.

Re: Computing is too easy

#57

Post by prof_hobart »

sthreet wrote: post #32
prof_hobart wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many more distractions these days, but I'm not sure that it's as clear cut as you suggest. It's really not that hard to get kids into some form of coding today. I've run a Scratch[1] club for 8-10 year olds at my daughter's school and every single one of the kids there loved it. By the end of the first hour, they were all producing some form of animation that they could control and all were desperate to com…

In my personal opinion everyone should learn the basics of programming for the same reason everyone claims that everyone needs four years of English classes and science classes and history classes, because it helps you look at the world in a different way. In addition, I personally have found that if I try to make a program to do math for me, I understand the math way better. So thank you for teaching some people, be…

Spectrums is plural of Spectrum, as in Sinclair ZX Spectrum, the computer that 90% of British kids had in the 80s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum).

Re: Computing is too easy

#58

Post by prof_hobart »

300bps wrote: post #24
prof_hobart wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many more distractions these days, but I'm not sure that it's as clear cut as you suggest. It's really not that hard to get kids into some form of coding today. I've run a Scratch[1] club for 8-10 year olds at my daughter's school and every single one of the kids there loved it. By the end of the first hour, they were all producing some form of animation that they could control and all were desperate to com…

Your point is solid, but your experience with Scratch is different than mine. My 10 year old son had very little interest in Scratch. I'm not entirely sure of the reason for this but I think it is related to: 1) It was hard to distribute his creations 2) Lack of natural aptitude / ability 3) Too easy to consume without producing We had a little more success with Construct 2. The main difference being that the games c…

You can easily distribute Scratch apps via their web site, but it's not really designed as a language to build full iPad apps etc. Its main purpose is to make learning the basics (control blocks, variables etc) easy and fun. By the time you're anywhere near something that you can distribute, you would have had to learn most of those basics. If something else, like Construct 2, works for you that's great.

I obviously don't know your kid, but I doubt that aptitude/ability is going to be a blocker from getting simple Scratch programs running. I know several others who've run classes to a wide range of ages and abilities and not one of the kids has failed to get to grips with the basics.

I can accept that attitude/interest (wanting to consume rather than produce) is going to be an issue for some children, but that's always been the case. And no matter how easy or hard it is to make things, those children aren't going to want to program.

My point was less about Scratch specifically - there's a few similarish programs out there that can be used instead. It's more that the incentive to learn and availability of distractions hasn't really changed in the 30 years since I was a kid, and if anything the barriers to getting into some form of programming have dropped drastically since those days.

Re: Computing is too easy

#59

Post by shiggerino »

cafard wrote: post #52
shiggerino wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why Common Lisp is such a godsend for me. It covers a much wider gamut from low to high level than most languages. The Lisp Machines were really on to something, users didn't really have to know a lot of languages or competing systems. They also ensured good access to documentation. This is also two areas where the Macintosh failed (perhaps intentionally). Though Hypercard was extensible through XCMDs and XFC…

What was the price of a Macintosh, though, compared to that of a Lisp Machine?

$49,900 for a Symbolics 3620 [1], $9,995 for a Lisa [2], $2,495 for a Macintosh 128k [3]. Affordability was a big priority with the Macintosh, and I'm thoroughly impressed what they managed to do with so little resources. So obviously, a Lisp Machine environment was far out of reach of even most experts at the time. However things progressed and I wouldn't be surprised if a PPC 604 box could run circles around a 3620. (If there's an actual Symbolics user here, please correct me if I'm wrong) So while impossible for consumers in the 80s it was certainly possible in the 90s.

It's interesting to think about what if things had happened differently. Perhaps we would be sitting here posting from Copland and programming in Dylan today. Or probably not since in that case they would be bankrupt by now. But that reminds me, I think I have a pirated Copland beta laying around somewhere that I never got around to try. I seem to remember you needed two PowerMacs connected by serial cable, with one running a debugger, for it to work.

1. http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102713428 2. http://www.apple-history.com/lisa 3. http://www.apple-history.com/128k

Re: Computing is too easy

#60

Post by lispm »

shiggerino wrote: post #59
cafard wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What was the price of a Macintosh, though, compared to that of a Lisp Machine?

$49,900 for a Symbolics 3620 [1], $9,995 for a Lisa [2], $2,495 for a Macintosh 128k [3]. Affordability was a big priority with the Macintosh, and I'm thoroughly impressed what they managed to do with so little resources. So obviously, a Lisp Machine environment was far out of reach of even most experts at the time. However things progressed and I wouldn't be surprised if a PPC 604 box could run circles around a 3620…

The only problem: you could not do anything with a Mac 128k. Especially not development.

Things looked much brighter with the Mac II. But even there you needed expensive 32MB or more RAM, a disk with VM, a large screen, an Ethernet card, a graphics card, for a useful setup. Plus a license of MCL. In sum that was cheaper than a Symbolics, though. Performance was okay for the time, but started to look better with 68040 machines - given that they had lots of memory.

The PPC 604 was appearing when Lisp Machines were already long dead. I don't think in real life single CPU 604s machines were that great.

Post reply on HN