[echelon]

I dislike this perspective.

I taught myself programming at age 12, well before undergrad.

If I'd been forced to learn binary before I could make websites and games, I would have given up. I might have even avoided programming forever.

I think the very first thing someone should learn is the fastest path to build something that interests and delights them. Theory can come later, when they're ready to appreciate it.

[asow92]

You could have made learning binary a game. Learning binary isn't difficult and should only take a few days to a week of lecture to grasp a sufficient understanding.

[echelon]

> should only take a few days

This doesn't work for everybody!

Let people learn in the direction that interests them. The highest energy reward function first.

Once they feel rewarded, then let them learn theory. They'll have a deeper appreciation and the stamina to press deeper.

[asow92]

Hard pill to swallow: Doing things that are good for us that we don’t necessarily like is a part of growing up.

[echelon]

Forcing someone to learn something is a quick way to turn them off forever.

[asow92]

Yes, I can see that now that I’ve tried to teach you this point.

[echelon]

Unsubscribe [1].

I get your point. But you can't convince me that teaching binary before the fun parts of programming is the most effective way to bring more people into the subject matter.

It's like trying to onboard game developers with linear algebra before they play around with pygame.

Fun first, rigor once they're hooked on the magic.

[1] (Tongue in cheek, obviously.)

[kwhitefoot]

Don't you learn about number bases in maths lessons in school in the US? We did that in the late 60s in England.

[bamfly]

We do, but it's taught as trivia. Applications and various "tricks" are what matter for binary in CS, and they don't teach that. We're taught about non-10 bases, but not taught why we should give a shit about them.

Same as most of the rest of primary and (especially) secondary school math, really. I doubt 1% of recent high school grads can tell you a single reason why anyone should care about quadratic equations, even though they likely spent months of their lives jacking around with them (for unclear reasons). Most of it's just taught is extremely-painful-to-learn trivia. Trig and calc get a little bit of justification & application, but not much. Stats probably comes off the best, as far as kids having even half a clue WTF they can do with it after the class ends.

[kwhitefoot]

> Most of it's just taught is extremely-painful-to-learn trivia.

That's weird. When I was in school in the UK (1960..1974) mathematics was illustrated with practical applications. This was especially so as we progressed into more sophisticated physics and chemistry.

[bamfly]

You'd get examples sometimes, and (infamously) contrived word problems, but not enough and most of it wasn't at all relatable. Some whole topics were totally lacking in anything but horribly-contrived motivations, including covering bases other than 10. You might get "computers use binary!" which... OK, cool, so what?

But yes, we'd see some applications of usually limited and relatively simple math from e.g. calculus or algebra in other classes, which typically amounted to plugging values into a handful of formulas (which, to be fair to those classes, is what the vast majority of "using math" is in the adult world, aside from basic arithmetic). Not in math class, though, and not at all for many topics.