[HN Gopher] Usborne computer and coding books from the 1980s ___________________________________________________________________ Usborne computer and coding books from the 1980s Author : rwmj Score : 108 points Date : 2022-07-23 12:50 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (usborne.com) (TXT) w3m dump (usborne.com) | neilv wrote: | I remember the robots book. I think we found it in the gift shop | in a science museum, during a grade school class field trip. | | A barrier to a young kid building the robot was the difficulty of | obtaining critical parts, unless you had a parent helping a lot | with sourcing and bankrolling. | | (In the US, an accessible Radio Shack store had some of the | parts, and you could improvise some of the hobby shop materials | from cardboard boxes and wood scrap. But, e.g., a matching pair | of gearboxed motors were unobtainium that a kid might only find | in random mail-order catalogs they were just starting to | discover, at unaffordable prices.) | | Today, things are much more accessible, thanks to Adafruit, | accessible online retailers, Arduino, Raspberry Pi, easier access | to information (not serendipity of happening to discover whatever | book/magazine a library/bookstore/friend happened to have), 3D | printers... even being able to easily get your own PCB design | fabricated one-off, without expensive materials followed by a | hazmat incident. | open-source-ux wrote: | These 1980s computer books are great and have been discussed in | past HN threads. | | The most striking about these books: they are more readable and | enjoyable than many programming and computing books published for | adults today. | | The books use illustrations extensively to explain concepts, and | the layouts are varied and lively to keep readers attentive. | (Compare to the stranglehold of markdown for any technical | documentation). | | Not only are these Usborne books well-written with clear, concise | explanations, they are also excellent source for inspiration and | ideas for anyone writing a technical guide, tutorial or book. | mixmastamyk wrote: | These are great, gonna share with my favorite young person. | Reminds me of my commodore manual back in the day. | | No relation to Osbourne the computer company or the metal | vocalist. :-D | nope96 wrote: | I've found some neat, mint quality 1980's computer books just | like these in furniture stores, where they fill the floor model | bookcases with old books. | flir wrote: | This, right here. This is how I learned to program. Especially | Creepy, Spacegames and Battlegames (but only got that one from | the library). | Scuds wrote: | My local library(US) had a few of these and I'd copied some BASIC | programs them onto my Apple //c and didn't know why they didn't | work all the time, specifically $CHR or anything involving peek | and poke. | | 8 year old me knew there was something different about the comic | art alongside the text, yet I couldn't explain what. Turns out - | British! | | The machine code books would have been useful at that time, but | again, I'm 8 playing with a hand-me-down Apple with no other | help. I don't know what I don't know and I have no mentorship and | no internet or bbs access to download new stuff. | | Kids today have access to all the video tutorials they could ever | want. | | e: God DAMN line numbers suck. And double god damn do line | editors (think ed as opposed to vim) with no proper backspace. | alisonatwork wrote: | I had the same problem - our family had an Amstrad CPC! It was | rare to find books that had listings that worked in their | entirety, but if you had a source of native listings (e.g. in | the CPC case from magazine Amstrad Action) then it was possible | to port some of the programs. | | I was also too young in those days to be able to understand how | to port PEEK, POKE and so forth, but I do credit trying to get | stuff working (often in futility) toward my future interest in | becoming a professional computer programmer. (Of course I'm not | writing games like I imagined.) The experience of trying to | parse mystery code is surprisingly similar to frustrations with | finding libraries that almost but not quite solve your problem, | or web layouts that look okay in most browsers until you | encounter a weird screen size, and so on. I wonder if this | background is what led me to being the kind of developer who | greatly prefers maintenance, troubleshooting and bug fixing to | new feature development. | tomduncalf wrote: | I must have read that Better Basic book hundreds of times as a | kid. So nostalgic to see those graphics again! Not sure how much | of it I really understood as I was pretty young but no doubt | played a big part in getting me into programming. Some of their | books on other topics were awesome too I seem to recall. | adamddev1 wrote: | Yes me too exactly! What brought back waves of nostalgia in | particular were the pictures of robots storing variables in the | boxes. I remember these were so fascinating to read, bringing | the code alive. | klondike_klive wrote: | The "Write Your Own Fantasy Games" features illustrations by a | Chris Riddell. Wonder if this is the same Chris Riddell who does | cartoons for the Guardian, and was UK Children's Laureate from | 2015-17? | dcminter wrote: | I had a handful of the Usborne books as a kid and they were | inspiring. Seeing the covers brings back the exact feeling of | being a ten year old kid besotted with microcomputers. | | One of the books that's sadly not been made available from the | Usborne site had a representation of what a future portable | computer might look like that was hilariously off the mark while | being perfectly reasonable from the point of view of its era - I | recall it having what was clearly supposed to be a tiny green CRT | display for example! | reiichiroh wrote: | I only found out recently they are a pyramid scheme. | klodolph wrote: | A ton of people in industry don't know what this period of time | was like because they missed it or didn't have access to | computers at the time. This was the short period in history where | the following two things were simultaneously true: | | 1. It was normal and expected to program a computer, if you had | one. | | 2. Computers were inexpensive enough that many families could | reasonably own one at home. | | If you go too far back in time, computers were either expensive | or made from kits, which meant that very few people had them. If | you look at more recent periods in history, it was no longer | normal & expected to program computers. During this period, your | computer came with a manual that explained how to write BASIC, | and you could get these Usborne books from the public library. | | Nowadays, it is easier than ever to learn programming. There are | all these wonderful tools like Scratch. It's just that the normal | way to use computers these days is to use premade software. There | are tons of children who could learn to program, could even teach | themselves, but who are unaware that the option exists. | ghaff wrote: | >Computers were inexpensive enough that many families could | reasonably own one at home. | | Sort of. There were cheap computers like the Commodore 64. But, | by the time you put together a floppy disk only PC clone in | mid-80s, you were probably still looking at a few thousand | dollars so maybe $6K in today's money. Not astronomical but | still a pretty big purchase. Hard drives were just coming into | the reach of consumers then but that would have added to the | price. | klodolph wrote: | I don't get this comment. You definitely didn't need a PC | clone or disk drive to learn to program. | ghaff wrote: | BASIC with line numbers and GOTOs was fine as far as it | went. And I did some programming in that vein for both | games and engineering utilities. But I moved on pretty | quickly. | klodolph wrote: | That's a good start. Once you've started, you have all | sorts of options for continuing. | | Some people moved on from BASIC by poking machine code | into memory. | harvey9 wrote: | "lunchtimes in the library | | Writing down the pokes and peeks" | | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IagZIM9MtLo | rwmj wrote: | I programmed for years (1981-1985) with line numbers and | cassette tapes. In hindsight, yes, it was tedious, but | you don't know what you don't have. I do remember being | amazed at how fast a 3" [sic] floppy disk was when I | finally got one. I don't think I have ever used a BASIC | without line numbers to this day. | mrob wrote: | A 48K ZX Spectrum (the most popular model) sold for 129GBP in | June 1983. According to the first Google result I get for "uk | rpi inflation calculator"[0], that's equivalent to 523GBP | today. It was typically used with a television as the | display, which most families would already have. The usual | data storage system was cassette tapes, which were also | widespread at the time, although it was common for people to | buy cheap dedicated tape recorders for their microcomputers. | Not as cheap as the options we have now, but most people who | really wanted one could have found a way to afford it. | | [0] https://www.hl.co.uk/tools/calculators/inflation- | calculator | ghaff wrote: | Right. That's why I mentioned the Commodore 64 which was | probably roughly similar in capabilities and price. Doing | programming on such a system was pretty different from a | PC-compatible however. But it was absolutely a way for kids | to get started. | zozbot234 wrote: | Cassette tapes were an awful storage medium though. They | were just about usable enough for loading software from | previously written tapes, and even that was slow. Floppy | disk media was a total game changer, allowing for some | amount of actual productive work even on the old 8-bit | machines. | shever73 wrote: | They weren't ideal, but I owe my career to writing games | for the ZX Spectrum and distributing them on cassette. It | wasn't until 1988 that I was able to get an Amstrad | PC1512 with floppy drives. | Zenst wrote: | Indeed the documentation was a level that service engineers | today would envy and more so techincal details at a level you | only get from some serious reverse engineering/hacking today. | | Kinda best way to put it is documentation was akin to what you | would expect from a mature MCU today as comparable level and in | some ways, more accesable and you felt you owned the computer | more and had a more intermate understanding. | | Though many things go that way, Cars another example and cars | of that era, you could get documentation and fix yourself. | Today, you under your hood might as well be a Borg cube. | keithnz wrote: | not sure about "expected". Quite a few of my friends and myself | got computers in this era, vic20s, c64s, Spectrums, Ataris | mostly. Most of my friends just loaded games. I learnt to | program mine ( I had a few of these books! ), another friend | spent a little bit of time learning basic also, but pirating | quickly became a thing and soon everyone had a ton of games. | briHass wrote: | I feel fortunate that, as a child of the early 80s, by the time | I started programming (age 8 or so), it was the late 80s and | these personal computers were available for cheap at yard | sales. One of the first I owned was a VIC20, which I think I | bought (or convinced my parents to buy) with all the | peripherals at a garage sale for $30. I got a C64 soon after in | a similar way. | | A few years later, my dad would bring home IBM PC XTs and ATs | they were throwing out at his work. The rest is, as they say, | history. | | I loved these books, and I'm pretty sure I had almost the | complete library. A few of these books, a curious kid, and a | simple computer that boots directly into BASIC, with no | distractions. | enneff wrote: | Basically describes my experience too. | | One thing that was amazing about this time is that even a | 10yo (as I was) could understand almost everything that was | going on in those machines (in a functional way, if not the | finer details). Then as we grew up the programming world | became more complex, and we were able to track that | complexity as it happened. | | I don't envy new programmers today who have to contend with | vast complexity even to do the simplest of things. | IMSAI8080 wrote: | I agree. The fact the 80s micros booted to BASIC put | programming in front of you from the get go and subsequent | machines hid programming away. The fact the machine came with a | manual that was mostly about programming, they expected you to | do that. If you wanted to play a game you often typed it in | from a book (like the Usborne series). You tried to see if you | could cheat or change the game by messing with the numbers | which exposed you to tinkering with programming. | mattbee wrote: | _There are tons of children who could learn to program, could | even teach themselves, but who are unaware that the option | exists._ | | This just isn't true, there are a billion ways into programming | that there weren't in the 80s and 90s, and computers are | cheaper too. Sure you don't get to tinker with your OS as | casually but the scope of "learner" programming environments is | so much greater. Even a keyboard isn't a necessity - look at | the results from Dreams on the PS4. And Scratch is ubiquitous | in (UK) schools, my son picked it up without any prompt from | me. | | It might just feel like kids don't want to learn programming | because most people don't want to learn, but most people (you | know) are now _using_ computers compared to the 90s. So | proportionally that is fewer computer users becoming | programmers, even if numbers are going up! | klodolph wrote: | >> There are tons of children who could learn to program, | could even teach themselves, but who are unaware that the | option exists. | | > This just isn't true, [...] | | Let me get this straight... you're saying that children are | generally aware that they can learn to program, and that | children who aren't aware of these opportunities are rare or | something? | | I must be misunderstanding something here, because that | sounds like complete horseshit to me. I have years of | experience teaching children how to program, and the vast | majority show up unaware that learning to program is | something within their reach. | zozbot234 wrote: | The point is that these computers don't come with development | tools installed by default and made available in the default | environment. They don't provide any equivalent to the BASIC | interpreters of old, or to the REPL of a Lisp Machine | workstation. You can install e.g. Linux distributions that do | provide the means to code and rebuild nearly any part of the | installed system, but these are very much the exception not | the rule. | | > And Scratch is ubiquitous in (UK) schools, my son picked it | up without any prompt from me. | | Scratch is a huge downgrade from the likes of LOGO (a real | LISP implementation, with a few syntactic conveniences to | help novices) and even BASIC on the BBC Micro, which used to | be taught in UK schools. | ghaff wrote: | >The point is that these computers don't come with | development tools installed by default and made available | in the default environment. | | I mean, Linux aside that's technically true. But, you got a | BASIC interpreter that was pretty barebones even for the | mid-80s in a PC of that era. And Turbo Pascal was a | revelation when it came out because other "real" | programming tools cost hundreds of dollars. | | But, today, for free, you can install any number of | advanced programming languages and IDEs in about 10 | minutes. (And, on a Mac, Python at least comes pre- | installed.) | redwall_hp wrote: | It's funny...because this is exactly me. When I was a kid | circa 2000, I learned to program because I found one of | these exact Usborne books at the local library. The idea | that people who didn't work for Microsoft could develop | software hadn't exactly occurred to me until I found that | book and learned the basics. Of course, I didn't have a | computer with a BASIC interpreter to run the listings, so I | searched for more books and ended up porting the BASIC | listings to JavaScript and running them in Internet | Explorer 4. That also got me into learning how to build web | pages by hand. | | There are more resources than ever if you already want to | learn to program, but it's still hard to cross that | threshold from _using_ computers to realizing that learning | to program them is something approachable. Microsoft and | Apple have both always promoted this sort of learned | helplessness with their users, treating the GUI like a | tangible thing and not providing obvious tools that | encourage programming. | zozbot234 wrote: | Microsoft Windows actually shipped with a BASIC | interpreter in the IE4 days. And Apple had Hypercard. | rwmj wrote: | I think it was the immediacy combined with the lack of | choice. The ZX81 "booted" into BASIC (in about 2 seconds), | and there was nothing else to do. You programmed it or you | asked your mum to take you to WHSmiths to spend more money | than you had on a game which would take 15+ minutes to load | from tape. I wasn't interested in games so I programmed | instead. | jll29 wrote: | I had an interesting debate with a respected colleague at a | British university about this once. My view was that | teaching kids should be in a way that is "real", e.g. | typing in Python code and not "toy" (e.g. Scratch) so that | | - they can get a feel for how real-life programmers work; | | - they can incrementally refine and build on what they know | until they have picked up a very valuable (in terms of job | market) skill | | I agree Scratch is sufficient to understand loops etc. but | it doesn't "scale", i.e. at some point you need to switch | over from Scratch to an "grown-up" language. | zozbot234 wrote: | Python is actually a pretty bad language for novice | coders, the programming model is _way_ too complicated | and hard to get a feel for. I 'm not sure how people can | even manage to "learn to code" via Python alone. | antod wrote: | I remember reading "Learning Python" in the 1.5 days and | then a bit later properly using Python the 2.0 days. It | seemed a lot simpler back then, and seemed like a clean | powerful successor to the 8bit BASICs I started with. And | nothing else at the time seemed to capture that clean | easy on ramp to coding feeling, but still allowing you to | go much further than eg an 8bit BASIC. | | Presumably if you limited which parts of the now massive | 3.10 you exposed to newbies, you could still get the same | result? The very basics haven't changed too much since | 20+ yrs ago. I suppose the trouble is that any web | searching is going send newbies off the tracks into | advanced topics pretty quickly now, but that is still | likely in just about any language. | mixmastamyk wrote: | Could someone link to a copy that doesn't require a google | account to download? I tried with an older one I had and it | demanded a telephone number, can you believe? | ascorbic wrote: | Ah, memories of carefully copying BASIC from these books. All | Usborne books are great (and my kids love the current ones too) | but these in particular were such a formative part of my learning | to love coding, aged 8-10 or so. | felixfurtak wrote: | I remember as a kid having that Robot book and building it. | Cutting out the balsa wood templates, mounting the motors. It | worked pretty well, but I managed to destroy it pretty quickly | when I tried actually make it move. My programming skills were | never that great. | AgentME wrote: | As a kid in 1999ish in the US, my elementary school library had a | book on computers that got me into programming, and I've been | trying to find the book again since then. I think the book was | just titled "Computers". The book had many pictures and diagrams | about lots of computer-related things, but it definitely wasn't | aimed at only young kids. Among many things, it talked about | computers being used by NASA, it speculated about future | computers and the internet (mostly as a future thing), and it | also had classic diagrams of CPUs, logic gates, and the half- | adder like out of college textbooks. I'd trace out copies of | half-adders in my notebook and execute it on paper to see that it | added numbers correctly. One page in an aside had a small example | BASIC program that immediately got me obsessed with programming | when I realized how simple it was to follow. | | In previous searches for the book, I found this site, and I | realized the book had many similarities with the Usborne books, | but I can't find it in any listing of them. I don't understand | how, but the book "The Usborne Young Scientist: Computers" (1992) | has some of the same content as the book I remember but it's | missing a lot while also having some content I'm completely | unfamiliar with. Maybe there was another lesser-known Usborne | title that repackaged some of its content? If this sounds | familiar at all to anyone, I have a few more notes on my memories | and search for the book at | https://tildes.net/~talk/is4/whats_one_thing_you_havent_been... | and I'd appreciate any pointers. | fipar wrote: | For anyone else who may get a nicely-styled 404 in their native | language: | https://web.archive.org/web/20220724171102/https://usborne.c... | Kim_Bruning wrote: | Thanks! | Kim_Bruning wrote: | The link links to the us site at | https://usborne.com/us/books/computer-and-coding-books . But the | site sniffs my IP, rewrites the URL to a different country ( | https://usborne.com/nl/books/computer-and-coding-books ), and | then 404s on that. | | Even if I _explicitly_ go to the /us/ url, it still rewrites the | URL and makes it impossible for me to read the content. I | literally can't look at the same content as someone from a | different country, and there is thus no way for me to compare. | | Don't do that! IP sniffing is a terrible idea on a good day, but | this is the worst. How is returning 404 ever the best choice | here? | julianz wrote: | Mine redirects to their NZ site which still has the page, maybe | try that one: https://usborne.com/nz/books/computer-and-coding- | books | adrian_b wrote: | When clicking that link from another country of the European | Union, I got a dialog box prompting me to select a country, | with the country for my IP selected by default, but I was able | to choose USA instead of the default. | | Then I could see the expected content. Maybe whether that | dialog box is seen or not depends on the browser used and on | its settings. | Kim_Bruning wrote: | That could be it. I'll try some different browsers and see. | adrian_b wrote: | I got that dialog box (having the "Welcome to Usborne" | title) with both Chromium and Firefox, on Linux, but | without having any ad blocker or script disabling, which | could prevent the appearance of a dialog box. | gpvos wrote: | For me that happened only when I went to the home page | _and_ turned off uBlock Origin for the domain (on latest | Firefox). | wslh wrote: | It works but there is another detail. If you came from a | country with a different language (e.g. Spanish) you should | choose first the language and just then can select "United | States". | kragen wrote: | Yeah, here in Argentina I also get a 404 error. | kar1181 wrote: | This is how I learned to program these books were so ubiquitous | in the 80s even my (very_ rural Australian) school library had a | few. I'm only had a Vic 20 so had to translate the listings that | tended to be aimed at the c64. | | So many careers had their origin in these books. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-24 23:00 UTC)