6th Grade iPhone Developer speaks at TEDx
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
I think back to my middle school days and it doesn't seem that different from us tinkering with (ok, I'm old so humor me) BASIC and assembler on Commodore 64s, Atari 800s, and Apple IIes. The big differences are that kids today have a chance to publish stuff without years of building business relationships. There's also something Paul Hegarty said in his iOS class in iTunes University (another thing we didn't have as kids - access to free college-level courses): There's just something neater about having your app in your hand to show people wherever you go.
This is so true. I used to build TI-83 games and physics apps for precisely this reason. Handheld devices are hugely popular among kids and the ability to go from a content consumer to a content creator is huge for them.
We had a decent design voice (shock/horror none of our oil-damped suspension designs made it), but essentially zero construction was performed by students in the club. Engineers from our partner org built the chassis from whole cloth using laser-cut polycarbonate and other legit machine tools. We didn't even get to watch that happen...the first rev of the mobility platform just sort of showed up one week.
At the time, my friend and I were really disappointed by that. But we stuck around and I'm glad we did, because it took a TON of teamwork and not-infrequent heroism for all of us to use and improve the robot without destroying it.
Software would have allowed far more room for experimentation and individual tinkering, but the group-social stakes would have always been way lower. Our robot literally had cheerleaders by the time we took it to compete in NH. That mix of fragility, anthropomorphism, weirdness, size/heft...can embody weeks of teenage group effort in a way that even a wicked-sweet app just can't.
So merits on both sides, I guess. And hey, app-controlled robots? Boom.
The real physical robots vs. all software / simulation is a classic debate. I heard MIT's Rodney Brooks (of the "build real robots" camp) used to tell prospective grad students something like "it may take you a year longer to graduate with me but you'll have one hell of a demo tape."
This year's FRC teams will be getting Microsoft Kinect sensor bars to use. Should be some interesting stuff.
When I was in elementary school, I really wanted to write adventure games in Logo and Basic... learning resources were limited to books and magazines, and the naescent online world (PeopleLink? BBSs?) was out of reach. I tried to get my mother to sign us uip for Q-Link, but being ahead of her time she said I'd get molested or something.
Later, as a teen I learned all I could about ARexx and AmigaShell, but never came up with the $350 it cost for a good C compiler.
These days, C compilers and IDEs can be had for free... XCode is $5 and the iPhone dev. program, $100 a year. There's an endless supply of help, reference and tutorials available online, for free to anyone with an internet connection and a computer.
There are many different sizes of TEDx conferences but coming up November 18-21 there are a cluster of TEDx Youth Day conferences. I think there are about 40 just in the U.S. They're a great event to take youth to or for youth to come present at. At our local one, our presenters ranged from I think 4th grade to an artist in his 60s. If you don't have a local one or can't make it, many are webcast live and almost all the talks are recorded and posted to YouTube at some point. If you have time, a lot of TEDx conferences always seem to need techies to help. And if you really have some time, organizing a TEDx of your own isn't that difficult.
It's really reassuring to hear of other people with similar experiences, especially those my age. There is nothing comparable to knowing what you want to do in life and being able to enjoy it immediately.
I really hope you continue to be successful and go on to build many cool things.
The basic social traits are there in a 6th grader too. Sharing knowledge for a better world!
I wonder what we will shape for our kids. I hope its not useless iFart apps and social networking junk.
It is really up to the parents. Extreme example, I remember having lunch with my cousins and one of them asked how a microwave worked. The dad, an engineer for IBM, disappeared and returned with a magnetron from his basement workshop. And then told his sons exactly how a microwave works.
The eldest son is now an undergraduate studying physics. He was about ten at the time of the question.
As a lesser example, my sister (who is not a Ph.D. like my cousins' father), loves BrainPop. BrainPop makes science fun without getting into too-many of the nitty-gritty details. Which is enough, when you are just 5.
"Children in professional families are talked to three times as much as the average child in a welfare family," Hart says.
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132740565/closing-the-achievem...
I don't mind the social networking junk too much either; it's detrimental in the short term but everybody I know is getting weary of how pointless it is. I've been reading A. S. Neill's fantastic Summerhill School, where he details the things he learned after 50 years of teaching children, and he argues that letting children play is essential to their growing up properly. Freedom to play eventually leads to kids deciding what they most enjoy doing, and it leads to them being more willing to work within their society. Since reading that, I've wondered if social networks aren't just our modern form of play: useless wastes of time objectively, but people will move on from them and find better things to do.
(I hope. Facebook/the status feed are still only half a decade old. If five more years pass and everybody's still just as hooked, we've got a problem; I think we'll see feed obsession subside, but I could very well be wrong.)
I'm willing to bet some of your generation did not have the same amount of curiosity and imagination you did when you were younger.
I ended up choosing flash, it was back in 2002 and started to learn action script (which was very basic then). Made a lot of crappy games, but got bored by the limitations of the software.
Now, years after, I still really want to make a game, but I'm in the wrong major, I'm trying to get into directX but It's really too difficult for me... I don't even know where to start.
Corona's media and physics libraries are a great match for 2D games. Other types of apps would be more difficult.
I have no vested interest in Corona; as an ex-Flash guy, I just think it's really cool!
Learning how to make an interactive website with JavaScript will teach you how to think in computer terms, teach yourself new technology (reading the documentation is itself a valuable experience) and take a project from imagination to reality. The very best programmers--and somebody starting out so young is probably more likely to become a great programmer--are not the ones that have mastered the technology de jour but rather the ones who have solid fundamental skills, a logical and inquisitive mind and can teach themselves new technologies easily.
Ultimately, all the short-term changes in the software field are ultimately fairly superficial. Going from Flash to JavaScript or C++ to Java is not an earth-shattering change--it's just a natural progression. There are changes, to be sure, but you're ultimately just doing similar things in similar ways. If anything, it just gets easier.
So, in short, the quick pace of the software industry isn't really as quick as it seems and writing programs is at least as healthy for developing intelligence and curiosity as anything else. I really don't think it a worse choice than sports or music for an extracurricular activity.
Hell, adults should do that for their phones, let alone kids.
He didn't oversell it (which is what every tech speaker does nowadays as they try, and fail, to imitate Jobs). His ton was even, he didn't sound or look nervous. He had minor trip ups a couple time and just kept going. He made the audience genuinely laugh.
Also, what makes you say he took "his cadences/writing style from popular tech presenters?" Isn't that a bit like watching a child score three pointers one after another and saying "ah, isn't that cute, he's imitating Ray Allen"
He absolutely shows signs of nervousness – his movements are twitchy, he speaks too quickly and runs over his sentences. Clearly he spent a lot of time rehearsing what he had to say, and he does a good job of it. He gets the audience to laugh, though I'll be skeptical and suggest that audiences are predisposed to laugh at jokes made by young people, and also at jokes involving Justin Bieber getting whacked.
The reason I wouldn't call him great (though he is clearly good at this) is that he doesn't take his audience's perspective into account. I'd be stunned if he could; it's a damned difficult skill to have learned when you're a preteen. He takes (and sells) some effective cadences, but what he's actually saying fits awkwardly within the frame. He spends time explaining certain things unnecessarily, because from his younger perspective certain details are more interesting than they are when you're even a little bit older. Again, not surprising, and not a ding against him.
As for your Ray Allen quip, unfortunately I don't know basketball well enough to respond, but I argue that there's a difference between a basic action (like shooting a three-pointer) and a pattern (like constructing a speech in a certain way with certain rhythms). It would be like if a basketball player had a certain famous technique for making his way across the court once he had the ball. You could watch a younger player and notice that he was mimicking the tactics of certain players. Once again, not something to be held against a young person figuring out the rules of a game – that's one of the best ways to learn! But this kid is still sticking pretty rigorously to a template. It's a good template, and I think it's cute seeing a young kid mimic speakers with whom I'm quite familiar.
I just wouldn't call it great – because for me presentation is a nuanced art, and there's a lot more to it than what we're seeing here. Calling this great might close minds to the possibility of more sophisticated presentations, and that would be a real shame. It's nothing against this kid, who's clearly bright and having a lot of fun in the spotlight.
I really didn't want to come across as pedantic, which is why I tried to keep it light and say I thought his mimicry was cute. And I love stuff like this! We need more 6th graders like this. I would have mad chilled with him and his app club.
That said, I do believe that the way we use language frames the world for other people. So I try to keep things in perspective. It's not that this isn't wonderful, it's that there're so many wonderful things that I prefer specificity of compliment to a general word ("great") that may suggest this is some sort of pinnacle to others. Greatness in turn becomes the people with such a tremendous sensibility that they can incorporate many, many wonderful things and, in the process, underline some deeper truth.
We're talking about both (1) his presentation and (2) his programming skills. Other kids should be encouraged by his presentation, instead of thinking, "Cool, but unfortunately he's a genius (or super-special, or etc.); I could never do that myself."
I agree.
I would go as far as to say that he is a better speaker than I am now and I would remain so without training.
That requires no qualification about his age or any of the other nonsense from some of the responses to your post.