>> there is a 1% of people extremely interested in turning >> on or off a pixel I taught "adults" aged from 16 to 86 for some years a course "Introduction to data processing", where I had tried to teach the basics beginning with switching light on and off. Having around twenty participants I experienced from time to time one or two who found it fascinating, so the 1% is in my eyes a good guess.
> 40x50. Probably nowdays unless you show them an antialiased > texture mapped 3D floating torus with their name and > face on it in live video they'll prefer exchanging > stupid messages with the mobile phone instead. The ability of making a video (I currently experience a run towards "equipping" videos from camcorders showing the involved teenager fighting using ordinary sticks with StarWars laser sword effects) when equipped with appropriate software tool is given now even to the not gifted 99%. After the videos are done by the a little bit smarter ones of the entire group, it doesn't whetting the apetite for more programming skills - it creates traffic on ICQ and Internet by exchanging the videos and the opinions if they are cool or not. > If it's about the time it will take to get a rotating > 3d torus with live video on it I know for sure that most > of the programmers I know that started from high level > will probably *never* reach that point. Many consider such skills as not worth to achieve, looking for a solution to eventually raising problems in a better computer hardware and new software tools in case of timing problems. Generally it appears to me, that it is true that many of current teenagers look for authorities not for own experience (this is nothing new) and that they perceive the world around them through the window of the Internet browser not through the window of the room (this is what makes the difference compared to past time). But the current world they experience is so different from what it was twenty years ago, that it is today sure possible to start on a very high level and stay there all the life never beeing able to go down to the details without having therefore serious disadvantages as a programmer. I experienced beeing very surprised myself, that it is even possible to be hired as a programmer having an IQ below the level of around 80. I am personally biased towards trying to understand anything as deep as possible and in the past was quite certain, that one can not achieve good results without a deep insight into the underlying details. I have now to admit, that I was just wrong. From my overall experience I infer, that it is not only possible but has sometimes even better chances for success, because one is not overloaded with the ballast of deep understanding which can not only be useful but also hinder from fast progress. Claudio "Andrea Griffini" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On 17 Jun 2005 01:25:29 -0700, "Michele Simionato" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I don't think anything significant changed in the percentages. > > Then why starting from > > print "Hello world" > > that can't be explained (to say better it can't be > *really* understood) without introducing a huge > amount of magic and not from a simple 8 bit CPU > instead ? What are the pluses of the start-from-high-level > approach ? If one is to avoid bordeom I don't agree > as assembler is all but boring (when you start), > or at least this was what *I* experienced. > > If it's about the time it will take to get a rotating > 3d torus with live video on it I know for sure that most > of the programmers I know that started from high level > will probably *never* reach that point. Surely if > you start say from pull-down menus they'll be able to > do pull down menus. And IMO there are good chances > they'll stay there lifetime. > > So is python the good first programming language ? > IMO not at all if you wanna become a programmer; it > hides too much and that hidden stuff will bite back > badly. Unless you know what is behind python it will > be almost impossible for you to remember and avoid > all the traps. Buf if you need to know what is behind > it then it's better to learn that stuff first, because > it's more concrete and simpler from a logical point > of view; the constructions are complex but (because) > the bricks are simpler. > > But it probably all boils down to what is a programmer. > > Is C++ a good first programming language ? > > BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :D > > But apparently some guru I greatly respect thinks so > (I'm not kidding, http://www.spellen.org/youcandoit/). > > Andrea -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
