Possibly, but PHP limits you to web-style interactions. You have to be excruciatingly clever to get it to act like a chat server or something. And forget about doing animation or sound or anything fun.

So once you've mastered php, you move onto something more powerful.

You can do tons in javascript these days also.

Right, but many beginning programmers don't want to start with something boring and move on to the fun stuff. You can't show a CGI form to your friends and have them drool over how cool it is. Instant gratification is key.

It almost has to be at the level of myspace -- look, I can quickly add this picture, or this music, or this text to a page all my friends can see.

(as a web programming novice) I think the problem with the web in this context is there are still some significant hurdles to getting set up, e.g. getting a server to host your webpages (unless you only want your friends to be able to see it when your PC is on). If you could get rid of these barriers...

I think if someone could provide a browser-based all-in-one solution with language+IDE+hosting+tutorials, then that would fulfill most of his criteria. You could type a few lines, instantly view the page and then send a link to your friends (who can view it at any time).

It's been a while since I've developed PHP on Windows, but way back in the day there was a popular package that would install PHP, MySQL, and a smattering of other things (like a GUI DB manager) in a single click. It got me started on PHP very, very quickly, and in a lot of ways I owe a lot of my coding experience to it.

Macs also now ship with PHP and Ruby, though they are sometimes broken.

I believe you're talking about XAMPP: http://www.apachefriends.org/en/xampp.html

Heroku? Google App Engine?

OK, perhaps I should have written a bit more here.

The issue is, there is pretty much no barrier at all to programming at the moment. That's why there are so many bad programmers who have just heard there's money to be made. Add to that the fact that identifying bad programmers is sometimes hard, and you have a bad situation.

Raise that barrier for entry, and perhaps someone who thinks "Wow there's money to be made in programming, I better get a job in it", will fall at the first hurdle.

If you're interested in it enough, there's plenty of easy to start development environments around for any beginner.

I think you sort of missed the point of _why's original article, though. He's not lamenting the difficulty for computer-savvy adults to get started programming -- the main thrust of his article is towards our failure to provide an easy-to-use, freely-included sandbox for kids to experiment with programming.

How many of the other folks here started out just as described in this article: namely, writing silly little BASIC programs for early Commodore, Apple, or DOS systems?

There are a handful of projects aimed at just this niche (Scratch and Greenfoot, for example) but none of them come standard on any new system. That lack of immediate availability means that kids have to actively seek out the tools + have the ability/privileges to install new software before they can even start experimenting with something like this:

  10 PRINT "JENNY HAS COOTIES!"
  20 GOTO 10

On any Mac said kid could do:

    $ python
    >>> while True:
    >>>     print "JENNY HAS COOTIES!"

No installations, no extra privileges, nothing. It just works. _why is tilting at windmills.

No, he's tilting at interfaces. Just because it's possible doesn't make it part of the culture.

Ah ok, I still don't see there being any barrier at all,

I bought my son a ZX Spectrum. You can still buy all the fantastic home computers on ebay etc etc.

Or, there are web based spectrum etc emulators out there where you can just write code and run it.

I'd agree though, it'd be nice to make sure kids can get access to the dev environment that lets them play quickly and easily.

It'd be cool to have something better on netbooks, like the eee. I don't know if there are any good learning programming tools included, but there definitely should be.

I think a better solution is to have an incredibly low barrier to entry (never know if you are a good programmer until you try it, so getting more people to try means more good programmers), and then focusing on improving your programmer selection (if you are hiring). If a bad programmer can't get a job, then they will most likely find another path in life. (If they keep writing bad code for themselves, who cares?)

As far as open source is concerned, bad programmers don't bother me, because you can generally find a solution written by someone that is good.

That seemed to the obvious answer to me. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft aren't going to open up development on their consoles because they make money off of licensing fees.

Unless they disallowed vendors from charging for games made by the "open" dev kit, thereby preserving the licensing fee.

Or just eliminate the fee in its entirety and take a slice of the revenue (or marginally larger slice).

I don't see how lowering cost of entry could be anything but advantageous to console makers.

On the first thought: I don't see it,they would still have to contend with a growing community of people who mostly want to play homebrew and open source games.

On the second: Maybe, but that might be seen as a barrier to publishing a game made for fun that just happened to be good. "Eh, I'll just give it away, I was only doing it for fun anyway."

Hmm, _maybe_ Javascript. You really need to be able to jump in and see results - visual results. The visual feedback of Logo was definitely instrumental in getting me into programming.

Like maybe a tutorial that helps you build a breakout clone, where all the code is live and interactive in an editor in your browser?

http://billmill.org/static/canvastutorial/

Very cool.

completely agree.. even building a basic html webpage hits a decent amount of his marks (transportable, improves connectivity, etc.)

is it so obvious that it was overlooked?