RM>  Certainly SOMEONE has to know how, but it isn't needed by
RM>  everyone or even MOST....  What's more, by dint of your
RM>  argument, would not the teaching of assembler (not macro) or
RM>  straight binary coding then be the ULTIMATE way of teaching
RM>  programming (they WOULD demand the most in logical progress
RM>  and orderly thinking)?
SK>Now that's going a bit far. It is not necessary to be involved in
SK>annoyingly tedious work in order to learn logic. I'd say it might
SK>teach better organizational skills and attention to detail, and an
SK>appreciation for higher level languages, though.
Logical extension of the argument... If teaching logical
thinking is the goal (rather than teaching programming), 
then why not do it the best you can?  My point being that
you can do it without teaching programming at all, and
many kids are going to find it every bit as burdensome in
basic as they would in assembler; others would love it no
matter WHAT it was...  Most of us here are computer geeks
and would (or do) appreciate programming; I don't think
that many of us consider programming a "must learn" item.
___
 * MR/2 2.26 * For a good time, call 1-800-3IBMOS2
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------