Derrick Storren wrote:
>
> If anyone here would care to remark as to whether children 14, 12, and
> 10 chould be subjected to LISP as a first language I will appreciate any
> comments that might flesh out my perceptions a little.
>
Good move, I would say, though I think Logo would have some advantages.
One is that it has some built-in graphics primitives for quick
gratification, the other is it was designed from the get-go for children
to learn and I think you can find more supporting materials aimed at
children than you would for Lisp (if any).
There is a logo newsgroup you might want to check in on.
> The only drawback I've found is a remark by one author [snip] that LISP was more
> difficult to use in writing "good" programs because it required more
> logically planned programming techniques or a greater abstraction.
As you noted, a plus as well as a minus. :) But your kids won't be
tackling hairy problems of sophisticated software architecture at first.
If they *do* get that far, they will be better off in
Lisp/Logo/Scheme/Smalltalk than Basic. (I would not consider C or C++ as
a first language.)
Basic is a great place to start as well, but Logo would be my
recommendation.
Happy Hacking,
Ken