Miles Fidelman <[email protected]> writes: > Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: >> Miles Fidelman <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote: >>>> No, no, no. That's the point of our discussion. There's a need to >>>> increase "computer"-literacy, actually "programming"-literacy of the >>>> general public. >>>> >>>> The situation where everybody would be able (culturally, with a basic >>>> knowing-how, an with the help of the right software tools and system) to >>>> program their applications (ie. something totally contrary to the >>>> current Apple philosophy), would be a better situation than the one >>>> where people are dumbed-down and are allowed to use only canned software >>>> that they cannot inspect and adapt to their needs. >>> As fond as I am of the days of Heathkits and homebrew computers, do we >>> really expect people to build their computers, or cars, or houses, or >>> even bicycles? Specify and evaluate, maybe repair, but build? >>> (Though the new DIY movement is refreshing!). >> This is a totally different and unrelated question. > > Not at all. The topic is historical precedents for technical literacy.
Well, I don't think the analogy is valid. Historically, those activities were done by hackers. Nowadays, everybody has a computer in his pocket, and in his car. I'd rather make an analogy with books: everybody can read and write and almost everybody has books, and is able to write in their margin. But the analogy can go only so far because computers and programming is radically different from everything we had until now. -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}. _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
