11–20 of 193 posts
Bret mentions Rocky's boots at the end of his writeup.
When I was in Grade 5, I taught the kindergarteners how to use logic by running Rocky's Boots on an Apple II. It was an effective way to learn because the use of immediate, graphical feedback. The kids had fun learning.
Couple random thoughts: 1. Is Bret Victor now the Linus of cutting-edge programming environments? 2. I don't have enough experience with Light Table or the Khan Academy environment to know whether Khan is just a first step on the way to something like Bret's vision, or more of a diversion. I was fairly impressed with the Khan env in my limited time with it. 3. I HATE telling people they shouldn't speak their mind and…
I keep thinking a lot of Bret's points are absolutely wonderful food for thought, but blur the line between tool and use of a tool so much that they will never be practical. It is as if he's taking the outcome and suggesting the language should have known the outcome, but the point of coding is to enable all kinds of possible outcomes, and that set is not quantifiable before the fact.
except the computer can and does run the code, and can then provide super-textual information
another example that is maybe in the neighborhood of a valid response to your reply is like the heap size in java. if i know i what i'm doing and why, i could set it rather high to achieve a goal, but mostly i don't mess with it because its a great reminder i'm making a bigger mess maybe than i should be for whatever problem i'm working with... however, it seems that victor's ideology is that the heap should always know how big it should be given anything i might want to express, and that somehow the halting problem wouldn't apply.
1. If you are making the conceptual jump from 'text' to 'dynamically annotated text', why not go a step further and just let people draw a rectangle with visual tools entirely (like in Illustrator,Inkscape,etc.) and forget the textual representation?
2. The real difficulty comes with representing things as they may arise through a dynamic program, not with just the 'initialization' stage as this shows. This is where code really really gets complex, and also is much harder to add to with these visual systems.
[EDIT] To clarify further, relating to comments below - The OP's main intent is "how do we redesign programming?" [for all programmers] and my comments relate to this, not just to the use of such techniques for students as a step towards learning traditional code.
This is a fascinating response to the Khan academy's curriculum. Some of the things he is raising here are faults of programming languages; I'm still against the idea of positional parameters. Khan Academy's curriculum is Android to Brett's iOS: you can copy some of the features, but it isn't a cohesive whole because the ideology was not as thoroughly internalized.
Its a smartly written piece, but to me this just scratches the surface. A couple of issues: 1. If you are making the conceptual jump from 'text' to 'dynamically annotated text', why not go a step further and just let people draw a rectangle with visual tools entirely (like in Illustrator,Inkscape,etc.) and forget the textual representation? 2. The real difficulty comes with representing things as they may arise throu…
Purely visual programming are, IMO, noble lies.* You want to start with an environment that echoes the final state, not one that's totally dissimilar.
e.g., training wheels vs. computer bicycle simulator.
*: The exception to this is when you're teaching children ~13 or younger, in my experience. It's always a question of what mental models a student has at their disposal.
2. By the time a student is at this stage, they have more sophisticated, general models the teacher can rely on. In this essay Brett is working in a world where someone might not have the right mental model for assignment, variables, looping, etc.
This is a fascinating response to the Khan academy's curriculum. Some of the things he is raising here are faults of programming languages; I'm still against the idea of positional parameters. Khan Academy's curriculum is Android to Brett's iOS: you can copy some of the features, but it isn't a cohesive whole because the ideology was not as thoroughly internalized.
Yeah, I was surprised that he kept positional parameters and added scaffolding to explain them. Why not named parameters?
Couple random thoughts: 1. Is Bret Victor now the Linus of cutting-edge programming environments? 2. I don't have enough experience with Light Table or the Khan Academy environment to know whether Khan is just a first step on the way to something like Bret's vision, or more of a diversion. I was fairly impressed with the Khan env in my limited time with it. 3. I HATE telling people they shouldn't speak their mind and…
Linus actually implements his solutions to things that he rants about, and releases his code, so that analogy isn't quite right. Bret gives us nice big-picture ideas and leaves the implementation for others.
I think many of the specific ideas mentioned by Bret will quickly fall apart when trying to actually implement something non-trivial. But that's okay, it's useful to have a really inspiring big-picture vision.
If you're trying to lead a revolution in programming, witholding praise from your strongest supporters isn't the way to go about it.