15 Aug
2001
15 Aug
'01
3:26 a.m.
"Eric Chomko" wrote:
"Jeffrey S. Sharp" wrote:
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
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.