pouët.net

and sense comes with age

as demonstrated by the picture posted by Maali and Adok's obsession for trying to teach Java to 6-10yo.

Maali: An interesting picture! I think both of them have not learned all the civil virtues well: politeness, diligence, orderliness, economicalness, striving for education.

and lulz!

that tutorial is pure bs. even for an adult.

he should have kicked her in the face

skrebbel: im forced to agree with you. i really liked the potential of functional programming when i first learned it, sucked having to readjust your code thinking mindset to be proficient in it, i remember some classmates of mine struggled hard just to cope with the basics behind it. would be enormous advantage to learn it from young age along with math and standard programming, would make things alot more interesting for math classes too. plenty of things are coded way easier with functional programming then with imperative languages.

Paperboy!

way to go ham!

The color coded keys is/was pure genius for beginners!

Honestly for young kids, it might be better to put in an emulator in fullscreen so they don't crap out the machine or get lost in Eclipse's menus.

are/were even :p

Wtf! I just looked at that java tutorial... Is this for real or is it a joke ? Haha try/catch indeed..

sorry this is just terrible..

Adok: you have higher QI than S. Papert, isn't it?

makc: I didn't know Seymour Papert, but I've googled him. Very interesting. I also have a LOGO book. I'll take a look at it.

After discussing this here and most said that Java is too complicated for elementary school children, I've now written a tutorial for Creative Basic which is based on my older QBasic tutorial. It is the version 1.0. I'll thoroughly read all feedback I get and use it for the next versions.

Navis: I only wrote the first lesson of the Java tutorial for elementary school pupils to see if it's possible to teach Java to elementary school pupils and to see how it can be done.

I'm still very interested in arguments about this topic.

p01: The advantage of Creative Basic is that you can also create programs for Windows and work with a PC and not with some older machine with strong limitations compared to the PC.

i'm wondering again, is it really that necessary, pedagogical and even healthy to teach programming to such young kids, specially in an austere environment, without enough math knowledge... they'd better learn more math basics before or approach programming through fun, games and smart toys like the Lego mindstorms series.

i would prefer more computer science learning inside math classes in high school.

the good point for such youngsters would be to make them desanctify the machines, understand they can enslave them. But such a direct interaction should be enough visual or 'creative' to captivate them.

Although you can learn a couple of things from BASIC, eventually we'll all just have to face up to the fact that computers are object-oriented these days, even at the user level. Also, I don't think BASIC is enough of a challenge for kids any more. Remember they've been raised with computers so it'll come a lot more naturally to them than it did to previous generations. Maybe you should consider writing a Java tutorial instead.

"computers are object oriented"

This is close to the stupidest statement I've ever seen on this site.

And note that in previous generations like us, you needed to understand basic to do anything with it, even play games. Nowadays you click on the web browser icon and off you go. Kids' understanding on computers has gone backwards, not forward.

I've translated my Creative Basic tutorial to the English language. It's now at
http://www.students.meduniwien.ac.at/~n0102122/index_computer.htm

Who wants to translate it to other languages?

why?

question:

why does so many bad programmers write tutorials, can't they just quit?

Adok: go get a clue. you have it all wrong, but as the enlightened mensa member you'll probably figure it out you're self (because you're so damn clever).