On Thursday, July 4, 2002, at 02:23  PM, Alan Kay wrote:
> It must be someone else you are thinking of. I've never taught children 
> anything but OOP. I don't think adults or children who have *never* 
> programmed are challenged in the least by OOP.

Thanks, Alan -- I did misinterpret you.  My apologies.

> Well, I think this is a confusion with "objects" and some of today's 
> "object-oriented systems".

That's probably where I stumbled -- it's not the "objects" but the 
current, common "systems" that are at the wrong level for an 
introductory University course.
Thanks!

>      For example, I am astounded that folks who teach Squeak in college 
> haven't done a lot more to make an introductory environment that gets 
> beginners quickly into the many media objects in Squeak. This would be 
> analogous to what we did with the etoys for children, but with more 
> range.

I think the problems are skills, range, and time.  It's rare that one 
finds in the same person(s) the skills at developing classes/curricula, 
understanding novice programmers and the learning issues, AND 
implementing introductory programming environments. And even if one can 
assemble a team with the skills to do all of this, it's a large effort 
and takes a lot of time.  It doesn't HAVE to be a huge effort, but I 
think our design processes for educational software are young yet.

Mark