> We have actually tested Bloom-like systems on non-programmers and had much better results than with imperative or functional languages.
Interesting! Do you have any link to your study? I'm interested to see your methodology and how you handled researcher bias :)
By the way, SQL is a pretty complex formal system well grounded on theory. I would never write it off as "not real". Most people don't understand SQL without training, by the way.
> By the way, SQL is a pretty complex formal system well grounded on theory. ... Most people don't understand SQL without training, by the way.
I think lots of people understand, or can understand, the theory of SQL. It's the "install this, go into this directory, edit this config file, make sure it starts with the system by doing this, install these drivers for the database" stuff that stops a lot of people before they start. Same applies to pretty much everything that runs as a service, like webservers.
Really? I agree installation is a major hurdle, but in my experience -- that is, coworkers and students -- most people are helpless with SQL beyond very basic queries unless they've been trained in it and truly used it. Most people don't understand the relational algebra it's based on, either. To make it clear this is not some kind of elitist statement: I struggle with SQL, too, because so far I haven't needed to write truly complex queries in my day job.
This isn't an argument against SQL, by the way. It's an argument against the notion that the overriding principle when assessing a tool/language is whether it's simple and easy to learn.
Ok sure. My point is that there should be a clear path from "I might want to use this thing, what is it about and can I give it a spin" to "ok I get it, where can I learn more." Not to say that everyone will _instantly_ understand the concepts, but that time spent on incidental tasks is pretty much wasted.
But the basics of almost everything are approachable. The basics of Prolog, Haskell [1], Basic, etc, are all approachable. I learned programming with GW Basic, back when I was a kid; it's learnable, but I wouldn't enjoy building complex software with it.
SQL itself is a complex beast. Approachable in parts and with training, like many complex tools.
We were also taught prolog, asm and (weirdly) pascal. We didn't manage to actually produce anything interesting in any of those. The Access CRUD apps and the little VB6 games were the only working software that came out of that two year class.
> I'm interested to see your methodology and how you handled researcher bias :)
Oh we totally didn't :) Our user testing is very much at the anecdotal phase so far. Fwiw though, the researcher bias was in the other direction - @ibdknox was initially convinced that logic programming was too hard to teach. We were building a functional language until we found that our test subjects struggled with understanding scope, data-structures (nesting, mostly) and control flow. That didn't leave a whole ton of options.
Interesting! Do you have any link to your study? I'm interested to see your methodology and how you handled researcher bias :)
By the way, SQL is a pretty complex formal system well grounded on theory. I would never write it off as "not real". Most people don't understand SQL without training, by the way.