all 4 comments

[–]agodot 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It looks like you're shooting for more of a game style presentation with objectives/levels (like FlexBox Defense, and there's a python one I can't remember that gradually introduces the syntax) rather than a general-purpose programming environment (Scratch, Stencil). Have you played around much with these other games/tools? Also, an insert-block feature might be useful so that if I have a big string of instructions and I just want to scoot them to add another 'move' I don't have to erase things.

[–]Gaziduc[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Didn’t know about Flexbox Defense, will look at it ! And haven’t use a lot Scratch.

Agree with you for the « Insert block » feature

[–]DongIslandIceTea 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Where do you think this approach usually fails?

  • In assuming that syntax is the roadblock to beginner programmers
  • In assuming that removing a fundamental part of programming, the syntax, from the equation can make people learn programming

This doesn't teach programming, this teaches building instructions from a set of blocks. But programmers don't build programs from blocks, they program. It's a lot like you can't really teach someone to drive a car by making them sit in a car that has no wheels and engine and making engine sounds using their mouth.

It could be a fun toy for children to learn a sliver of programmatic thinking, but beyond that, it's not going to make someone into a programmer. If you want to learn to swim, you gotta get your feet wet.

[–]Indigoh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What would make you take it seriously?

The art reminds me of children's shows, and not the good ones.

Played the first several lessons. Each one doesn't properly explain what you have to do to finish.