[Jare]

> does not scale beyond the absolute basics

> if they are inclined

I agree with those, but I want to emphasize how important it is to ensure that the "absolute basics" remain accessible to the least inclined until they discover if they want to scale up to the next level or not.

In regular shared classroom education, one of the toughest elements of accessibility is to ensure nobody ends up left out because of unfavorably comparing themselves to the stars of the subject. I myself was a star in computers, but a total and abject "I don't want to be here" failure in physical education - I remember how it feels on both ends.

[flafla2]

I’m glad you brought this up and I totally agree. Indeed, in a “learning language,” the basic things should be easy and approachable for beginners, but the hard things should be as easy as they can be as well. Or at the very least, hard things should be possible.

The best learning language that I’ve come across is Python. Nothing is harder than it needs to be at the beginner/intermediate level. And it scales all the way up to real work in the industry. Plus, the author of the OP would be happy to know that semicolons are not an issue :)

[sitkack]

We should never introduce filters to education and understanding. It is immoral.

Giving examples of tenacious kids battling their tooling is evidence that we should increase the slope of the difficulty curve. This isn’t how pros train, this is how you self select for kids you don’t have to teach.

[hjek]

Alright kindergarten, today we're gonna right ahead with calculus part II.

Even if we "take the gloves off as soon as possible", there is a point at which Snap is brilliant. Are you going to teach Python to primary schoolers?

[sitkack]

I think we agree? Snap is brilliant and we should strive to teach everyone a subject, not just those that get-it on the first try. I don't think we should make things harder than they must be.