On 2007-11-27 4:32, Chuck Guzis wrote:
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.
I couldn't agree more! Then again, I have a sick love for COBOL... I very
much enjoy the limitations it places on the programmer (especially
COBOL-74!), and pride myself to still be able to write obfuscated code in
such a chatty and readable language.
But I cut my teeth on Z80 assembly, and there are many simulators available
that'll get you writing low-level programs in no time at all, teaching
valuable lessons about the basic workings of microprocessors. From there,
you can go down to learning the gate level workings of computers, or up to
learning the software side of things.
,xtG
.tsooJ
--
Dead end
You are at a dead end of a dirt road. The road goes to the east.
In the distance you can see that it will eventually fork off. The
trees here are very tall royal palms, and they are spaced equidistant
from each other.
There is a shovel here.
take shovel
Taken.
eat shovel
You forcefully shove a shovel down
your throat, and start choking.
You are dead.
You have scored 0 out of a possible 90 points.
--
Joost van de Griek
<http://www.jvdg.net/>