Teaching kids about computers...

[Chuck Guzis]

On 26 Nov 2007 at 18:59, Fred Cisin wrote:

> I started a tangent that isn't likely to stay on topic.
> I'm sorry.
> 
> I have a crackpot theory about the effect on software development of
> having similar or different syntax between spoken and programming
> languages, and therefore why Forth would be better than FORTRAN for some
> cultures, etc.  Unless we want to talk about what effect that had in the
> 1970s and 1980s, this isn't the place for it.

I think I can put this back on topic, being one of the guilty parties 
(sorry, Jay).  

While some have suggested BASIC and FOrth, no one has yet suggested 
COBOL.  Yet, COBOL is the closest of common programming languages to 
English, unless you'd like to count some of the contrived "natural 
programming languages" such as Metafor.  In any case, COBOL might be 
closer to the language already understood by a young person.

However, natural language is rarely rigorous, as many have pointed 
out and attempting to add rigor to conversational natural languages 
is probably folly.

I submit that any high-level programming language--formal or natural--
while a shortcut way to get a machine to "do something", obscures the 
inner workings of a computer to such an extent as to give little clue 
as to precisely how the thing operates.  In particular, "structured 
programming" elements can really hide inner workings.

So, I propose that programming be taught first in machine language, 
then assembly.  That's how I learned to do it.

Cheers,
Chuck