> The fact that people often don't do that makes me suspicious.
I thought of doing that, even the first versions of the game had much more readable pseudoassembly, but in the end I wanted my daughter to comfortably read the output of objdump and I dont think its a big deal to learn few mnemonics. I also think kids respond really well when they are not patronized (at least mine does).
> To the degree that most people don't even see those structural flaws.
Do you think people dont consider arbitrary ready and write as a structural flaw?
There are thousands of people working on it, and making good progress, but in the same time, I still think its fun to peek and poke.
I think I agree with your reasons for doing it that and I wasn't really trying to criticize your game in particular.
I was trying to make a more general statement about the types of problems that we seem to find ourselves solving over and over again and the fact that that occurs as such a typical case rather than replacing those structures.
I don't know how to make solving structural problems into a game.
I guess I did want to be a little critical though just to insert the comment that it's also important to make sure we teach kids that representation matters and that system design structure should not be taken for granted.
I thought of doing that, even the first versions of the game had much more readable pseudoassembly, but in the end I wanted my daughter to comfortably read the output of objdump and I dont think its a big deal to learn few mnemonics. I also think kids respond really well when they are not patronized (at least mine does).
> To the degree that most people don't even see those structural flaws.
Do you think people dont consider arbitrary ready and write as a structural flaw?
There are thousands of people working on it, and making good progress, but in the same time, I still think its fun to peek and poke.