RM> Logical extension of the argument... If teaching logical
 RM> thinking is the goal (rather than teaching programming), 
 RM> then why not do it the best you can?  My point being that
 RM> you can do it without teaching programming at all, and
 RM> many kids are going to find it every bit as burdensome in
 RM> basic as they would in assembler; others would love it no
 RM> matter WHAT it was...  
So, why not apply this through to all factes of education and go back to the 
chalkboard?  The object here is to let the child develop at it's own pace.  
Without the power of programming, how would you teach logic other than raw 
lecture?  You have time for that?  You ever try arguing with a room full of 
kids?
 RM> Most of us here are computer geeks
 RM> and would (or do) appreciate programming; I don't think
 RM> that many of us consider programming a "must learn" item.
Many things you do in life are the result of some form of programming.  Is 
this some intellectual skill that a child doesn't need?
One uses an orderly process to produce a predicatable outcome.  With a 
computer, the child builds software tools and learns that simple changes in 
that tool can make the tool do something different.  This is what creates an 
inventor.  None of this is available with canned plug-&-play programs.
--- DB 1.58/003138
---------------