There; I changed the subject :-)
I think a lot of this thread has basically just said, "things just ain't
the same nowdays." That's true -- time marches on.
New computers are certainly better in many respects than the old
computers that many of us first used. New computers are good enough to
be treated as a "black box" -- an appliance that one can use without
having any understanding at all of how it works. Even though the user
doesn't use even 1% of its capabilities, that is still more than enough
for anything he/she wants to do.
But I think we have lost something important. There's something new
computers do WORSE. Old microcomputers were less capable, but also more
open and accessible. They were not all that great a computer for doing
"real work", but they *were* great machines to learn on. In fact, you
*had* to think and learn and hack to get anything done with them!
I've heard them described as "thought amplifiers". Just as some tools
can increase your mechanical strength, or ability to hear, or see;
computers can amplify your ability to think. They encourage logical
thought. This is *good* for people!
We keep tossing around ideas for building new versions of old computers.
The chips are certainly available to do it. But, perhaps we should start
by figuring out what it was about the old "classic" microcomputers that
made them so popular, such that they are still remembered fondly today.
What does a computer need to be a great learning tool? One that can
capture a person's imagination; make him/her *want* to learn more? Here
are some ideas:
1. It needs a built-in easy-to-use programming language.
Today, computers don't come with ANY programming languages.
Paul Schlyter wrote:
True for Mac's, not quite true for Windows, and definitely
not true for Linux!
OK; more precisely, 99% of today's computers sold come with no
programming language. Some do; but they are sold mainly to people who
are already very knowledgeable about computers. Thus the languages are
not for beginners, but for experts.
On the PC side, BASICA, GWBASIC or QBASIC was included with
MSDOS and Windows well into the late 1990's.
And one can see a continual de-emphasis of it as time passed.
But even Windows XP has two programming languages with the standard
distribution: 1. Batch language... 2. Good ol' DEBUG...
Yes, but these are pitiful shadows of the ease of use and flexibility of
a real programming language.
And then we have Linux, which is becoming increasingly popular
on PC hardware. The standard distribution contains assembler,
C, C++, Fortran, Java, Ada --- but not Basic.....
Because it is built for experts. I seriously doubt that anyone can learn
Linux "cold", as their first introduction to computers. It would be like
giving a child an encyclopedia as their first reader.
Finally, there are nowadays lots of free programming languages
available on the Internet! So any lack of programming language
on your computer's standard distribution isn't really a concern.
A computer is an expandable tool you know....
Let's think about children. Think about yourself when you first
encounted computers. You wouldn't know enough to pick a programming
language. And then, you wouldn't know where to look for it. And then,
how would you learn it? There *are* lots of languages available for
free; but does this do a beginner any good?
I'll quit here for now, and see what others think.