|
|
| Author |
Message |
jp2
|
|
Introductory Programming
| 
Oct 2 01:11 UTC 2003 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 124 responses total. |
mynxcat
|
|
response 1 of 124:
|
Oct 2 01:28 UTC 2003 |
C
|
scott
|
|
response 2 of 124:
|
Oct 2 02:05 UTC 2003 |
Awk.
|
carson
|
|
response 3 of 124:
|
Oct 2 02:10 UTC 2003 |
(does he know Turtle?)
[something about this question reminds me of when my dad tried to give
me the "birds ands bees" talk. I was 16 at the time and I remember
remarking to him that there still might be time to give the talk to my
little brother, who was 6.]
|
dah
|
|
response 4 of 124:
|
Oct 2 02:21 UTC 2003 |
python.
|
aruba
|
|
response 5 of 124:
|
Oct 2 02:43 UTC 2003 |
8086 Assembler.
|
dah
|
|
response 6 of 124:
|
Oct 2 02:52 UTC 2003 |
Python.
|
other
|
|
response 7 of 124:
|
Oct 2 04:38 UTC 2003 |
Tcl/Tk
|
other
|
|
response 8 of 124:
|
Oct 2 04:39 UTC 2003 |
(Let me clarify. Introduce him to scripting first, get him hooked, and
then move him up (down?) to programming. First one's free, you know.)
|
cross
|
|
response 9 of 124:
|
Oct 2 04:47 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 10 of 124:
|
Oct 2 10:32 UTC 2003 |
Hehe, me, sadist? You hurt me, Dan ;)
Seriously, I started with BASIC, which is basically defunct, and then was
tauht Pascal - total waste. Learnt a bit of C on my own, but never really
worked with it. I think in terms of usefulness, C is right up there. And once
you know C everything else just seems so much simpler.
|
remmers
|
|
response 11 of 124:
|
Oct 2 11:26 UTC 2003 |
<remmers hesitantly suggests Java>
|
dah
|
|
response 12 of 124:
|
Oct 2 11:34 UTC 2003 |
python.
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 13 of 124:
|
Oct 2 12:00 UTC 2003 |
I was going to say Java, but C's better ;)
|
jp2
|
|
response 14 of 124:
|
Oct 2 12:25 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
cross
|
|
response 15 of 124:
|
Oct 2 13:02 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
goose
|
|
response 16 of 124:
|
Oct 2 13:56 UTC 2003 |
Snobol60
|
mynxcat
|
|
response 17 of 124:
|
Oct 2 14:01 UTC 2003 |
At 14, learning BASIC would be an insult to his intelligence (I started at
10). If you want to teach systematic programming with little structure, and
absolutely no OOP, try COBOL. (Yes, you can be totally unstructured in COBOL.
Heard of GO TO. I've seen that abused most in COBOL than any other language
Iv'e worked with.)
|
murph
|
|
response 18 of 124:
|
Oct 2 14:41 UTC 2003 |
14 was when I did my first coding, and it was in C. However, I really liked
the way UMich's CS100 did it: teach logic first, then move up to assembly
(motorola 68k), then up to C. Unfortunately, lots of people didn't agree,
and they've totally dropped that class.
|
cross
|
|
response 19 of 124:
|
Oct 2 14:48 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
murph
|
|
response 20 of 124:
|
Oct 2 15:16 UTC 2003 |
i might even have my 68k book at home still (I wouldn't be able to check until
Xmas, of course); you're welcome to it, but on your own for hardware.
(Actually, probably easier to find an emulator somewhere than to bother with
hardware...) I probably have the text from that class as well.
|
jp2
|
|
response 21 of 124:
|
Oct 2 15:26 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
carson
|
|
response 22 of 124:
|
Oct 2 16:03 UTC 2003 |
re #9: (I wasn't exactly suggesting Turtle. [does anyone still bother
with it in this age?] I should have been more clear: I already
knew Turtle by age 8 and knew Basic by age 9. thus, the
implication of my other comment: if Jamie's brother is
almost/already 14, doesn't he already know how to program in a
simple language by now?)
["lisp." pshaw.]
|
remmers
|
|
response 23 of 124:
|
Oct 2 16:07 UTC 2003 |
I did my first coding in Burroughs 205 machine language, circa 1960.
(Yep, machine language - no assembler available. And the Burroughs
was a mainframe.)
I'm not as quick as Jamie to dismiss OOP for a first language.
|
jp2
|
|
response 24 of 124:
|
Oct 2 16:12 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|