Sometimes I catch myself thinking this way and need to remind myself of my own experience.
All one needs is a seed.
My seed was planted on a closed system: an Atari 2600. Specifically, one with a Spectravideo Compumate keyboard. http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/2600/compumat...
When I did as much as I could do on it, an Apple ][ clone was the next step.
When the iPad came out, I lamented the closed platform, forgetting that my Apple ][ was not where I started.
Something similar to my Spectravideo for iPad, is Codea http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/.
Instantly accessible, and instantly running your code. A perfect seed for a kid who might express an interest in programming.
Any kid who discovers a passion for programming has options to move onto any platform their desire takes them. The ubiquity of the iPad and other tablets might even promote the introduction to programming to anyone who is curious enough.
Also, would people would stop calling an iPad a consumption device. It can be used this way. Many people do. But then, many people use their PC for little more than web browsing and to watch Netflix. It's not the platform, it's what interest them. My laptop is gathering dust because of my iPad.
The naturally curious will naturally do more within existing constraints, and then break free of them.
>> "The naturally curious will naturally do more within existing constraints, and then break free of them."
The naturally curious will achieve more where there are less constraints. Making the iPad the default device for every kid out there is just making things worse for them in the end. I remember the startup screen of the C64: you could just type "load" and "run" if you wanted to play a game, but basically you could also write some stuff in basic and run it yourself. You could tinker all you want without having to install anything.
The iPad IS a consumption device. By design. It's certainly not made to produce anything, and even if it is possible, it's never the best tool for the purpose. It's just a massive trade-offs device.
Yes, we could tinker away with all the computers from the early 80s. We were lucky, this lower level of access was unavoidable.
But what about today? One never needs to type "load" and "run". Instead of discovery by the kid, a parent who thinks programming might be interesting for their kid is a prerequisite. And then they need to be able to do the research and install perhaps Python. And then what?
Playing around with Lua inside of Codea sent me right back to the immediate gratification of my Apple ][
In the end, does the platform matter? When I was a kid, I took apart the TV so I could see what was inside. Curious kids today will be similarly compelled to jailbreak their iPad.
I'd be curious to know how many programmers there are here who are programmers because of a push in the right direction by an adult, or simply because there were curious kids.
As I said, its a matter or design. The iPad is not made to enter information (except tiny bits), it is clearly a ''click/touch'' centric device. No keyboard by default says it all. You wont write a full novel on a iPad. You wont code something very long on it. And you wont even have the tools at hand to develop the apps that you use everyday. It is completely asymetric, and the barrier for curious kids to do something is huge. Whereas the same kids can just open a terminal on a Linux device and start experimenting away.
How about that: I wrote my first programs with pencil, on paper. I had no computer at home and very very limited access to computers at the university. Then I had to retype everything from my notes.
It's not JUST a matter of keyboard, while it's important. The visual cue you get from the ipad is a touchscreen. A computer, by design, makes the keyboard available at all times, and it's integrated to the nature of the computer. On the iPad, the keyboard becomes an option, not something necessary to do anything. The fact that you put the keyboard in the background says a lot about the positioning of the device. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but what I'm saying is that it's clearly a consumer-centric device because of the design.
Then, the absence of any kind of tools to recreate the very same applications you are using on your iPad re-enforces that aspect. You actually have to SPEND money to develop for iPad, and you need a proper computer to do that. Net, it's not a device that is made for development (even if you wanted to), hence it's a consumption device only, by positioning.
All one needs is a seed.
My seed was planted on a closed system: an Atari 2600. Specifically, one with a Spectravideo Compumate keyboard. http://www.atarimuseum.com/videogames/consoles/2600/compumat... When I did as much as I could do on it, an Apple ][ clone was the next step.
When the iPad came out, I lamented the closed platform, forgetting that my Apple ][ was not where I started.
Something similar to my Spectravideo for iPad, is Codea http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/. Instantly accessible, and instantly running your code. A perfect seed for a kid who might express an interest in programming.
Any kid who discovers a passion for programming has options to move onto any platform their desire takes them. The ubiquity of the iPad and other tablets might even promote the introduction to programming to anyone who is curious enough.
Also, would people would stop calling an iPad a consumption device. It can be used this way. Many people do. But then, many people use their PC for little more than web browsing and to watch Netflix. It's not the platform, it's what interest them. My laptop is gathering dust because of my iPad.
The naturally curious will naturally do more within existing constraints, and then break free of them.