These remarks are really rather amusing. You continue to lecture at me obvious things, based on assumptions that are false in every conceivable way.
I know very well the levels of computer understanding possessed by my kids. I am familiar with the technologies and fully capable of programming a VCR... or an IBM 360 in Fortran IV. I have started my own software company, innovating with Flash and neural-net agent systems, and will soon hold a software patent with 114 claims. The goal of teaching my children the relationship between mathematical algorithms and effects upon a screen would seem eminently desireable and obvious. So obvious that I find it hilarious that you assume your lack of comprehension is MY problem. Never considering the possibility that it is yours. As for QBasic, I never claimed that it did not work, only that its approach was obtuse, its tutorials badly written and cause-effect hard to follow. I feel no need to spend 30 hours learning an unnecessarily complex system within which I plan to work (with my son) for less than ten. If that proves me to be cybernetically ignorant by your standards, I am complacent with the fact that you believe whatever it is that you believe. The sheer transparency and usability of Chipmunk Basic proves that the thing I desired was possible. I can proceed now, with minimal fuss, to achieve reasonable goals, That is enough to show that my long search is (1) at an end and (2) completely and blithely indifferent to your unneccessary and silly criticism. Pursue this if you wish, but please remove the Brin: annotation from the subject line. -------- --- The Fool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: Davd Brin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > --- The Fool said: I > Still don't> understand why > Dr. > > Brin has Difficulty with Qbasic. > It seems very > much > > > like he's expressing the meme: "things were > better > > > in the past, a golden> age" that he himself > rails > > against so much. > > > > Well now ain't that sweet. An' seein' as how it > bears > > no relationship to actual objective reality, ain't > it > > creative, too? > > > > In fact, I simply wanted to show my son the > > relationship between math and the location of the > > myriad dots on a computer screen. By letting HIM > > create a program that uses an algorithm to achieve > > results, I hope to demystify computers and coding > and > > show that it all comes down to lines of code. > > You _still_ haven't, shown, proven, or explained why > or how Qbasic > doesn't work in the way you want. I know from years > of experience, when > I myself was a child learning these same very things > on my own, that > Qbasic does them, very simply. I was able to run > the code you posted in > less than ten seconds after receiving your message. > It worked. > > > You may choose to interpret this as "the past is > > better". But since, as you say, this is > diametrically > > opposite to my philosophy, an honorable approach > might > > have been to take that interpretation and > contemplate > > the wise words: "I might be mistaken." > > Perhaps, but I know from firsthand experience that > children are smarter > than parents give them credit for. They learn how > to use new > technologies very easily. My parents were VCR > blinking 12:00 people. > But when I was four I figured out how to program the > VCR, set it's clock, > etc. It's seems you are trying to find an > interpreter that you yourself > can use, instead of an environment where the child > can learn these > principle optimally. You aren't thinking outside > the box. It's not just > the algorithms your child should be learning, but > also how to use the > programs themselves for himself. If your child knew > how to use Qbasic > for himself, how much easier would it be to teach > him the basic > algorithms? > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
