I was having a chat with AlienCC of UnitedTI, and we got into a discussion of whether today's youths are more or less likely than those of a few years ago to get into programming or hardware. He believes that "I see a larger percentage of them wanting things to work without regard to how it works", while I argued "that a larger percentage are being introduced to technology earlier and are getting the opportunity to get involved with how it works". What do you think?

i think that a lot are being introduced early and more likely to go in, but I also think there are more who think they know a lot but don't.

I'll have to say that because the complexity of technology has grown substantially over the past few years, while usage has become easier and more powerful: I believe today's youth is both spoiled by the ability of their technology and disincentivized towards understanding it because it has become more and more complex.

I'd guess they would be less apt to program

First: Because even only a few years ago, you needed to understand computers well to use them, they were not to be used by every 5 year old kid. Now, just look at the Mac/XP interface. No need to be a programmer to use it... Look with the first computers, you needed to almost be a binary expert to use them.

Second: Because of the increase of quality of games/programs, it is very hard to just get in and start programming and have results that look great, like the programs now. It was relatively easy to get something like pacman to work, but try programming Halo or some high-graphic-speedy program alone, you might work for the next 3 decades (and then the games will have evolved...)

You bring up an excellent point there in your last paragraph. I, too, have noticed the impossibility of producing top quality games as an individual. Sure you can make 3d games, but they're nothing compared to what companies can do. This can be discouraging to an upcoming programmer who's stuck making 20 year old looking games.

I think that kids will not because of the opportunities to much better games, and a lot of kids done want to risk being called geek ect. And the schools, (atleast down here south) we have no computer literate teachers, a typing class which sucks (I triple the teachers typing speed), and dont learn much about computers at all. Today we had people struggling to put together a basic powerpoint.

It may be difficult to put together a game with good graphics, but if you com up with a unique play style and implement it as well as you can it will probably be noticed - then maybe you can join one of the companies

less likely, most people i know who had any exposure to computers prior to 1980 learned how to program...my 56 year old female orthodontist says she took a programming class in college. now there are far more people who just want to be able to use computers without thinking about it. sure the userbase as grown, but the percentage who program may have actually lowered.

yeah my geometry teacher is old and knows fortran and stuff but im one of the 3 kids at my school who program.

I don't like either of the two vote options you have. My vote is for "More adept with technology/less likely to program"

The kids at my school can use a computer, surf the web, and do all sorts of "crazy" stuff that I have to walk my mom through step by step. But show them a command line, a compiler, or an IDE, and they don't have the slightest idea what to do with it. Just mention the name "Linux" to them, and they give you the most clueless look ever.

In my programming class, everyone was asking/needing help with VISUAL BASIC. They couldn't even keep up with THAT. Some kids were having problems just dragging/dropping the interface together, yet they could work a camera phone and text people with amazing speed

Word.

Programming doesn't really help people as much as it used to. I always liked to make TI-BASIC or QuickBASIC programs to do my trig problems and show work. I only did it because I liked programming, though. If anyone wants a program for that, they can just google it and find one within 5 minutes.

And yeah, there are people who can type on a phone about as fast as I can on my calc.

true. I look around with all the people at school who try and do technology, and they look at me, and wonder where I get all the knowledge from that I have. Also though, I don't think the opportunity is there for people to learn to program at school, and a lot of people I know want things handed to them on a silver platter (but then again, my school district is known for having a higher average income then most the others). Also, in my district, the classes are designed for one thing alone, not to teach you to how to apply the stuff, but to pass the tests or go to college. Prime example, my AP Computer Science course, the description says something along the lines to learn how to program Java. So, I decided to take the class, and all we do is prepare for the AP test. The teacher looked at the book he got and said, "Chapters 13,14,15, and 16 are not covered on the AP test, we are just going to skip them". A couple of look at him and go WHAT? These chapters were on GUI and accessing files (and other things). Ticked me off.

If I didn't know better I'd say you go to my school. Anyways, here's my two cents:
-More adept with technology
Pretty obvious. As Kerm stated, children are introduced to technology at a younger age than before, and many become freakishly proficient at computers, internet, etc. by the time they reach adolescence.
-Less likely to program, do hardware, go into a technology/computer career
Has anyone else looked at a calculus textbook from the 1950s or '60s? They are mostly words and symbols, with a picture provided only to explain key concepts (Area under a curve means nothing if you can't see the curve to begin with). Now look at one from the past decade. Pictures on nearly every page. Why? People today gorge themselves on technology and virtually derive sustenance from the internet, land of the instant news, quick digests, and instant messages ruled by the almighty king Connection Speed. As such, I ask: does it take more time to skim a picture, or to read a block of text (say, 1000 words)? Without a doubt, picture wins. Therefore, denizens of the web (nearly everybody, to an extent) live in a land of JPEGs and GIFs, movies and clips (Youtube). An environment of pictures makes its inhabitants think in pictures, almost exclusively. Essentially, youth that submerge themselves in the world of media can't proficiently think in text (spelling, for example), and often can't or don't think in a linear, logical manner. Oh, and don't you wish that you had just skipped to that sentence to save the time and effort?
That being said, do you program computers in pictures? Not really, you program in a linear, logical manner. Same for hardware. You don't design a microchip to look nice, you design it to work. So, are youth that think pictorially really even competent enough to work on or be trusted with a vital and intricate programming task? No, unless they were on the committee for appealing GUI's, then perhaps. Well over half of the people in my computer science class spend free time "Myspacing", surfing Youtube, and snapping photos with their camera. They then proceed to bomb the ridiculously easy programming tests we get, implying that they have absolutely no idea what they're doing (kills any opportunity of a computer/technology career later on), or are closer relatives to apes than we might otherwise think. I'm betting on the former.

Yes: http://www.gemtree.com/peter.htm. It's kinda cool.
But I agree with everything else you said.

@the_moo53

you just proved the point, kids today are gettings everything handed to them in a nice prepackaged envelope, and dont learn the real stuff. if a kid knows that, they will say 'yeah im a pwnsome programmer' and in reality they arent. its like lying to them almost. that program has its limitations, I'll bet using that program, you cant make itslef (you cant make the program your using to make the program) because its complicated. I mean its a neat toy and all. but its not programming in my mind.

That "Peter" programming thing looks a lot more complicated and harder to understand than even C (assuming you are using a decent IDE)

@Pseudoprogrammer: I never really meant that it was a good language or anything, I was just trying to prove that Kuro was wrong.
And the language definitly isn't great or anything like that. It's just kind of intresting.

You did a wonderful job of proving me wrong: "Peter" apparently suggests that people are now so inundated in photographic media that other people have go so far as to make picture-based editors to create programs because the users can't do it any other way.

Or, more likely, Peter was created as a proof-of-concept. A "for fun" type of project. I would guess the creator of "Peter" just wanted to see if such an idea is possible, and if he could do it. I doubt it is intended for any sort of serious use whatsoever