Commander X16

Speaking as a one time TA back in my college days, and as one who will be teaching a part time middle school intro to programming class this fall, I would love to see a place for something like the X16, but I don't think it will be viable. I could be wrong and lack imagination, but that's my instinctive opinion.

The reason Apple & Commodore were big in education back in the day was that they were the "state of the art" then. They simply are not today. The one place that they would be useful in my opinion is in teaching hardware, as they are so much more approachable than modern electronics.

X16 should be usable by anyone to learn the fundamentals of programming. Digital literacy and cybersecurity don't feel like good fits with the platform as designed out of the box as they are not inherently online devices.

Ultimately I think the K12 problem is going to be one of $$$. Any modern computer (including Chrome Books and RPis) are sold in sufficient volume to have a great price point, and they are useful for more than just the CS education. In this day and age, the X16 is not going to be useful to other classes. The cost of a system needs to be amortized across as many courses as possible as they are a tool for more than just computer education.

I can provide some Utah standards for the various courses identified by the state board of education that demonstrate what a student is expected to learn through the courses.

I'll be in touch, but wanted to point out where I thought X16 would have a difficult time being a good fit for K12, where there seems to never be enough money.

I'm not a professional educator, but I do actually make a living as a technology communicator, which has also driven my side gig as a creator of programming tutorials on YouTube. Please feel free to use my X16 tutorial series for any folks looking to go the extra mile (or kilometer, depending on location) and learn 65C02 assembly language:

I have also dabbled in mixing C with assembly language:

 

Email sent. Also, first post!

Be like Steve and donate 1,000s of units to public schools.  That will be a good jump start.

I've been pondering this myself. 

I learned BASIC programming on a VIC-20, and that served as a good foundation for learning C and C++ later. Using this a a lead-in to an a programming class would be an interesting approach...

 

 

Part of the reason Apple was so big in schools was the recognition by Apple that students were future customers. Apple donated a LOT of computers for that reason. We're not going to get that kind of market saturation because our purposes are different. 

I'd love to teach kids on something akin to the X16. Of course, I teach a Python class, so that's going to be a strike against it right there for my particular curriculum.

There are many computer science concepts that could be taught via an X16. I plan to use the Commodore 16 (the one remaining true 8-bit computer I have) as a learning aid early in the semester before we get deep into Python. I also plan to bring in a PC mainboard and a raspberry pi. It is not important that they be functional to discuss some of the history / theory.

If I had an X16, I'd gladly take it into the classroom and show it as a tool to aid comprehension, but neither I nor my school would have the resources to purchase 20 to 25 units.

Now, the original call to arms doesn't advocate necessarily for an entire course built around the X16, so finding ways to fit it (or other retro technology) isn't an impossible task. The tall order is finding the money to get enough into schools in a world where free software tools exist for javascript and python and a variety of other languages that run on commodity computers that already exist in the schools when trying to teach software and logic, and those will probably run on anything they have at home. The skills developed from an X16 (or C64 or Apple II or insert retro platform of choice) are immensely valuable! But so are the skills picked up from modern hardware.

I think that something like the X16 or Ben Eater's project could have even more value in electronics and hardware oriented classes, but based on my experience, most people trained in hardware wind up working software, because that is where most of the demand is.

I've said before I'd love to be wrong about the feasibility, and I'm going to participate to see what can be come up with. I just have my gut instinct of how likely this is, and I'm not in favor of pushing the boulder up too steep of a hill. A slight incline, perhaps...