Mail Archives: djgpp/1998/09/09/19:10:16
I got my first computer - a ZX Spectrum - when I was four years old. I
started writing programs when I was six or seven - but for years I only
wrote programs which made various farting noises. I'm not sure whether or
not BASIC is the best choice for a seven year old; I think that C would
be a good choice as long as you try to make everything clear and simple,
using libraries like Allegro to minimise (at first) his exposure to the
complexities of C.
In comp.os.msdos.djgpp, article <35F602EB DOT 5228464C AT mindspring DOT com>, Derek
Greene (topcoder AT mindspring DOT com) wrote:
> Excuse me sir, but I am 14, I started in Basic at the age of 9. Probably
> the only reason I didn't start sooner was because my family didn't own a
> computer until then. Frankly sir, from my experience, a bright 7 year
> old could easily learn C with some simple perseverence, and an
> intelligent child _will_ have it. I know, I was there. A 7 year old
> will get as frustrated with Basic or LOGO as with C because the
> principals are the same all over, just a different interface to the
> principal. I encourage any kid who wants to learn to program, and I say
> they should be as aggressive in their learning as they want to be. As
> for the gentleman with the original question:
>
> Buy a ' x For Dummies' book like Qbasic Programming for Dummies, C for
> Dummies, et cetera, they are written in a form a baby could understand
> (and that's probably not far beyond the truth :-).
>
> Mr. Breton, your LOGO suggestion is a good idea, but don't denounce the
> possibility of a 7 year old learning C, and also spell BRIGHT as such and
> not brite, as it is incorrect.
>
> Derek Greene
>
> Tom Breton wrote:
>
> > "John S. Fine" <johnfine AT erols DOT com> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > I have a very bright 7 year old who wants to learn to
> > > program. I program mainly in assembler and occasionally
> > > in C. I know there are better first programming laguages
> > > than C, but I would rather teach him a language that I
> > > am comfortable in myself (and assembler is clearly a
> > > worse choice).
> > >
> >
> > Pardon me for making a suggestion that you may have already decided
> > against, but have you considered LOGO? It's the only language I can
> > think of that is meant for a child. And frankly, I don't see a
> > 7-year-old, no matter how brite they are, using C without so much
> > frustration as to make it a lasting negative experience. "Getting"
> > the idea of writing source code at all is a tall order for a
> > 7-year-old boy.
> >
> > If he picks up LOGO easily and seems bored with it or frustrated with
> > how little it can do, then is the time to introduce real languages.
--
Andrew Gillett
http://argnet.fatal-design.com/
ICQ: 12142937
- Raw text -