I agree it's interesting. But back then (I'm 34) we only had desktop computers so the distraction time was limited.

I remember being forced to take a typing class my senior year in HS, at which point I was already a very proficient typer. So I figured out how to hexedit the program save files and mark my exercises complete.

I feel that the new era of phones and apps have two major drawbacks:

1. The always on distraction in your pocket and on your wrist.

2. The walled garden hardware and software that makes it nearly impossible to tinker and gain a deeper understanding of the magic behind the screen.

I had a T9 dumb phone because that's all that was available. Smartphones didn't exist yet. There was no reason to be on your phone the whole time, at most I might be distracted because I'd be texting a crush during class. I wouldn't be scrolling through social media - it didn't exist yet or what did exist wasn't accessible by phone.

I think some of the difference may be the form factor.

With traditional computers, the computer was in a specific place, and people would use a computer when they were at the computer. Then, when it was time to eat lunch or go to the bathroom or go to the next class, the computer was gone.

On top of this, a real keyboard is much faster for typing, which means that less time is consumed merely transcribing one’s thoughts into text.

Sure, but it’s not like kids are missing out on computer options and not every kid is going to be a developer. Any kid who wants to play with technology today has much more of an opportunity than ever before (in middle and upper class districts in the US in my experience).

When I have kids (or if I ever run a school somehow), I would give my kids hackable, terminal devices that could connect to the internet with work. Both sides are doing it suboptimally. The anti smart phone crowds are suppressing kids natural desire to look for learning and new experiences outside of taking exams. The smart phone crowds underestimate the power of these multi billion dollar addiction engines. The optimal solution is to work with the children's natural curiosity and provide them a runway to growth.

I agree, but as someone with kids, the problem is that it has to compete with the entire environment. It's not just screens, although that's the biggest distraction factor.

There's a million more toys of every variety that are dirt cheap and that they will be given as gifts, or their friends will be given as gifts. And there's just such a huge amount of _actually great_ media to consume that's much more available, ie graphic novels and age appropriate books, way more higher quality kids show, etc etc. I'm not complaining, but a terminal environment is going to take a lot of careful planning in order to compete with an embarrassment of riches.

I still think PICO-8 did a pretty good job of capturing this; given their licensing, though, I wish they had released an actual console in addition to the fantasy console. It runs fine on a Pi Zero.

I think about this a lot because I was the same, I couldn't stop messing around with computers and I owe my career to it. But if I was a kid today I'd probably just get caught up in the easy distractions and not learn to program. It's a very different environment now.

such bans do work. one or a few will find ways to circumvent, but the vast majority will end up complying.

our minds tend to fantasize a lot about our early days. our memories are flawed and what we remember now are full of gaps filled with fantasies that make us feel good.

On the one hand, I think "Bad Thing banned for kids but the smart kids get around the ban" is a pretty good state of affairs.

On the other hand, I fear that the "think of the children" crowd will attach legal jeopardy that will mostly fall on the smart kids, their parents, and indie developers.

Flash games in Excel files was the way