SemiOT: Mourning for Classic Computing

From: Greg Lindsey <glindsey_at_ssinc.com>
Date: Wed Aug 15 10:26:14 2001

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

> "Jeffrey S. Sharp" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Douglas Quebbeman wrote:
> > (...)
> > I've always thought that one of the more simple assembly languages would
> > be a great 'first language' for someone wanting to learn how to program.
> > Who's with me?
> >
>
> First language? No, I still think BASIC is best as a first language. And
> before
> I get yelled off the board, let me explain. Not all people are meant to
> program.
> BASIC is a perfect way to separate those that can program from those that
> cannot. I can't imagine someone not "getting" BASIC , yet being a natural
> born assmebly language or other language programmer.
>
> Now, for those that get BASIC and find it limited or boring, fine, move on
> to
> C, Java, assembly or whatever.
>
> Also, assembly language implies that you must first learn the computer
> architecture to some degree. High-lievel languages have no such
> prerequisite.
>
I'd tend to agree, in general. However, I think something like MIPS
assembly (such as that taught in CS courses at UIUC) might work well as a
"learners" language, and doesn't require knowing TOO much of the hardware
(aside from the registers / memory distinction, which could be taught using
a "file cabinet / cubbyholes" analogy).

What about LOGO? I know it was touted as the next big beginner's language
in the late '80s, but never really took off...

But, yeah, I'd say BASIC is still a pretty good language to see if someone
can "get" programming -- provided that someone moves to a structured
language quickly if he or she wishes, instead of getting into bad
programming habits (as I did for a while).

GSL, who remembers writing a LOGO simulator for GWBasic so he could use
programs in books
Received on Wed Aug 15 2001 - 10:26:14 BST