At that time, the emotional ROI was higher - in a couple days you could write a game almost as good as Namco's Pac Man port (audio on the II was a bitch, however). Today, a commercial game consumes usually multiple millions of dollars and teams of dozens of multi-disciplinary professionals. All but casual games are mostly beyond the grasp of a kid learning to program.

Not only we need cheap, simple, computers, but we need something that entices kids to program. What will they want to build?

With the BBC Micro and other computers of that era (I got started in computing with a ZX Spectrum), you could start using the machine _almost_ straight away (you still needed some accessories, like a TV). I think you're referring to that simplicity and how easy it was to get started. Switch it on and start typing BASIC!

This prototype (at least) looks like is a microcontroller board, like the Arduino (uses the same MCU as the Leonardo; although Michael Sparks from BBC R&D has mentioned on Twitter that the final model probably won't be based on that MCU and they have designs based on ATmega, ARM and MSP430).

That means you're going to need a computer to program it and there are few concepts you need to understand to get started. Not as easy as "switch on and program" :(

This is interesting indeed, but I honestly think it isn't comparable to the BBC Micro (or even the Raspberry Pi).

It's just too damn hard to use for most kids. By the time they've worked their way around the Linux command line and file permissions, a big percentage have lost interest. (Yes, this is based on experience, from friends who are trying to use it in classrooms.)

It's good that the Pi Foundation is making an effort to produce educational materials. But IMO they should have worked much harder on initial usability, with a simple task-driven desktop that pointed kids straight at coding and web design.

With the old 8-bit micros you could start coding immediately. The Pi is nothing like that. The effort/reward function is off for all but the very brightest kids.

As for the Micro Bit - as you say, it looks a bit like the BBC's take on Arduino. I guess success is going to depend on the software environment, which is something that no one seems to have much information about yet.

I'm concerned that C++ is included, because that wouldn't be my first choice as a teaching language. But Python is too, and there's a custom language for beginners, so it may all work out.

They got it wrong write from step 1. The default raspian makes you pick a distro, then you have to log in (hope you're in front of the manual) then boot your own desktop environment with `startx`.

The Pi should be plug in -> boot to desktop with an icon for the manual, examples, scratch and the python repl. From that you get doing something and there's the carrot to have a reason to find out what other things it can do.

The choices are important but they've got no context until the pi is doing something in front of you.

This board is going to be great for the Pi. It fixes that first step. You make this board do a thing for you and ask "How can I connect two of them up" or "I want the to work while I'm away". Enter the pi to replace your laptop your developing on. Now you have a reason to learn how to leave it unattended.

Sure, its not comparable in terms of richness or depth of a machine to the Micro, but then all schools have PCs now. Its just they're used for Office and learning how to be safe online. Not for coding.

Let's hope kids then start asking their teachers how to do more than blink some lights, and ask their teachers to learn how to build websites, apps etc. Then it'll be a success.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Live#Hacking_incident

> The first one-off special was the subject of a memorable hacking incident. Ian McNaught-Davis and John Coll logged into the programme's BT Gold email account to demonstrate the features of the then relatively new idea of email, only to find that the account had been hacked. Shortly before air, the floor manager had informed Ian McNaught-Davis the password for the account, unfortunately while his microphone was live. Visiting computer guests, who were in the Green Room, overheard this information and immediately telephoned a friendly hacker, who proceeded to use the information to get into the account.

The games they create are not slick but they're sophisticated enough that the kids are learning how to work through real programming problems on their own resources. And the kids evidently find this very rewarding and addictive.

Compared to that they find even Lego Mindstorms kind of dull. The social aspect of Scratch is a brilliant touch.

The comparison to existing platforms is being made because platforms matter. 30 years ago there were no deemed adequate platforms so the BBC had to build their own. Today there is at least the Pi and the Arduino, as well as the Lilypad wearables series. Creating a new platform for the sake of it dilutes effort rather than strengthening it.

I'm concerned that this is the domestic equivalent of a fly-by-night aid initiative, that drops in a whole bunch of resources and expensive personnel for a year or two then vanishes.

Hard to compete against pre-packaged products if it's less usable than the Rpi even if it's free.

[0] http://www.raspberrypi.org/help/what-is-a-raspberry-pi/ and http://www.raspberrypi.org/about/

Let's hope this initiative interests kids not exposed to this level of computing to then go on to buy Rpi's, learn how to use a command line, install an IDE, make a web site, or whatever else.

It's the gateway to computing aspect that's important here, not the longevity of the platform.

Rather than throw electronics at all kids and see which ones it sticks to they could make the Microbit freely available to that particular year group - all you need do is reach out your hand and take it. Then the 1 in 10, or whatever, that bother to try it can be bought a RPi with the savings. If you can't even be bothered to pick one up at your school library or send an email saying "yes please" and have it handed to you in class then the chances of you watching TV programs to learn how to use it are probably about nil.

Say this was sport, would you buy every kid a rugby ball? If you just buy enough so that everyone who wants one can get it then those that want to play rugby can have kit paid for too.

Good point, didn't see this as a gateway to further computing.

I like the fractal nature of this. RPi was an Cambridge undergrad intro to computing. Now the Micro Bits a primary/secondary audience who might use it as a stepping stone to an RPi.

When the original BBC Micro came out they could have easily based their programming around the Spectrum or other computer than was in the market.

Now when there are already credible alternatives in the micro market - Arduino, Pi etc. - they choose to have their own 'designed'.

I suppose I should be happy that they're spending the license money I'm forced to pay on this rather than crap like Eastenders.

Fundementally it show the BBC with it's soft funding is out of control and looking for a purpose.

(and the Beeb was released before the Speccy anyhow)

How about we skip the BBC, let schools purchase Raspberry Pi's as they desire and claim directly from a government fund (this I would certainly support)

If its anything like their contract IT spending they probably paid more than market rate too...

But that would imply the funds come from the Treasury from general taxation/borrowing - which seems unlikely in this age of austerity.

The BBC arguably has a lot more freedom to do this kind of thing given its main revenue source is its own hypothecated tax in the form of the license fee.

Good on them I say - at least they are doing something interesting rather than the usual nonsense we hear about education directly from politicians.

^(The "bedroom tax" is much worse in impact but not technically a tax)

You don't have to pay for a license to watch catchup/previously broadcast programmes on iPlayer, DVD's, Netflix etc.