Is Python The New Basic? ("Python For Kids") (opens in new tab)

>I've built a Logo[2] implementation so that we can move into writing modular, reusable procedures and play with graphics.

I've always felt that it's hard to go against Logo. When I was a kid, there was a direct connection between what I did on the keyboard and what the turtle would do.

That language changes your brain, not your data. Thus, it is one of the most important languages.

Remember those laptops for African kids? They integrated Python for learning to program. I only watched the video, back then, but I remember them showing the Python console.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Laptop_per_Child
  
  Pippy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7aQxYuKJ18
  Turtle Art https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2MblcmwWo8

I concur. From my limited experience with Lua, I'd say it's a very beginner friendly language, and it's blazing fast in certain conditions. There's also an app called Codea which runs on iPad that allows beginners to code games within. It works suprisingly well, and there are a few games on the app store that are written entirely on iPad in Codea.

I don't fully understand why Lua hasn't taken over the world. Seems that a large part of it is a sort of weak ecosystem (maybe larger than it seems, but too spread out), and maybe the table thing weirds people out. People want to learn something they can use in "real life" as soon as possible, at least in my experience. But if Lua had taken over that wouldn't be a problem. Grrr.

1. If you think Python is a pain, I don't think there is any other language you can learn. I've learned lots of different languages, but Python was one of the easiest to pick up and get started--not so different from BASIC. 2. Unless things have changed since I last worked with python, your statement "Everything is an object" is not true. Actually this is one thing I like about Python over Ruby (In Ruby, everything actually is an object.) As far as I know, Python has primitives, and therefore not as confusing as ruby for beginners. 3. Here's a problem: "Build a program that fetches content from a web page.". Try building that without using any modules. Maybe even try that with your BASIC if you want. By using modules you just reuse what people have already built, and can solve aforementioned problem with just a couple of lines.

>why to use modules for everything instead of solving problems with your own code.

That simply doesn't make sense. You could make that argument against every single programming language.

Just ignore the object stuff when starting. And later, only use when it actually helps.

The way to get around the "everything" is an object thing is to just ignore it. Object Orientation is mostly a convenience at that level of programming and you can do almost everything without even bothering about it.

To iterate on what you said:

Because it was simple and the rest was very complex. In fact, only assembly language for some CPUs was as simple as basic (now, it's not really the case anymore, although asm basics are simple, stuff often gets complicated with special registers and special opcodes doing magic)

Many languages today as simple and relatively sane, like, say "python" ;-) (now the other reason why I like python is because while you don't feel limited with it, it _forces_ people to code half readable, half decent stuff. They got a good balance)

It's still way beyond 8-bit BASIC. I think the BASIC interpreters that ran on small home computers of the late 70's and early 80's were in a sweet spot between being high-level languages (variable names, strings, arrays) and being close enough to the metal to illustrate things like conditional branching (no multi-line IF's demanded the use of GOTO's for conditional branches).

Yes... At least for non-technical people.

Last year I did a small project with Excel/VBA and I realized VBA is even more difficult than C#. String manipulation is overly complex and nearly everything seems really difficult.

Maybe the modern equivalent of "boot straight in to a REPL." is starting a browser, everybody and his grandma knows how to do that, and if that is done, Javascript is closer than any other programming language. I can imagine a default, browser based Javascript REPL just being one mouseclick away. that can be done and probably will be done sooner or later.

Agreed. Tandy Color Computer 2 for me (with Extended Basic ROM upgrade - Oh Joy!), but same deal. Natural transition from there to QuickBasic (not QBasic!) running on a 386SX and the world of compilers and runtimes. Between QuickBasic and Python there was a blur of other languages which I have mostly forgotten.

But were it now for the REPL, I would likely not be a programmer today.

Agree 100%. You don't have to install anything. It's on every machine with a modern web browser, even mobile devices.

It's even got the "nastiness" factor down. :-)

We're also starting to see things like Snap written in pure JavaScript/HTML5:

http://snap.berkeley.edu/snapsource/snap.html

The problem with Javascript is that you basically can only use it to interact with websites (thus forcing people to also learn HTML and CSS along with it). There is also the problem of it being a language full of warts and implementation incompatibilities and missing lots of features you would want from a modern language.

I agree strongly with that. It's easier to use, solves the deployment problem and does not even force the concept of objects onto a newcomer.

It was the same 10 years ago. Presumably it will be as low as it was when programmable computers were first deployed to homes with kids. It might get older if kids get too much video games that don't inspire them to program the machine.