It's probably worth noting that all programmers above a certain age predated the option to learn programming at home with a PC. That caused the number of new (but not necessarily good) programmers each year to explode.
There is a sweet spot I think between the introduction of cheap personal computers (Apple II, Commodore, TRS-80, etc) and the wide availability of the internet starting in the mid 90s.
In the 80s and early 90s, affordable computers existed but there wasn't so much you could do with one. The list of activities looked something like:
1) Play Choplifter
2) Play Loderunner
3) Learn BASIC
I have to disagree totally. This is exactly the time frame where I learned assembly language (Atari 800) and C (Atari ST, etc.). As a programmer these machine were excellent tools for learning how the guts of the machine really worked, teaching yourself how to program and sharing information with other enthusiasts. Lets face it, how many of today's younger programmers have a clue what a index register is, or even how a cache is used?
You completely missed his point. He's saying because you didn't have eighty bajillion websites, fancy games, and Facebook to waste your time on, kids who were just playing around on a computer were much more likely to start learning something like BASIC (or, as you mentioned, assembly and C). Now those same kids are posting YouTube comments that make me fear for our future. :)
Yeah, sorry. I was thinking about it from the perspective of a 13 year old who has never touched a computer taking his new Vic-20 out of the box and hooking it up to the TV for the first time.
Programming was a natural thing to attempt to do since there was little else you could use a computer for at that time.
That caused the number of new (but not necessarily good) programmers each year to explode.
Your implication is exactly backwards, from what I've observed. People who learned programming as a kid for the joy of it are much more likely to be good programmers. People who went into it for job training are much more likely to suck.
I'm not implying that it caused there to be more bad programmers, just that it caused the number of programmers overall to explode, and that probably adds a lot of noise to any observations about older vs. younger programmers.
I agree with you, but I also started learning to program with a Commodore 64 when I was six, so I'm probably a bit biased. :)
