I think the hoops for doing this sort of thing are greatly exaggerated. Windows has had a scripting language built into it for years in the form of Powershell. OS X has a variety of other tools: Python, Ruby, Perl, etc. And then you have the web, which has a huge number of repls for various languages. Like repl.it which has Forth, Python, Lua, Scheme, Javascript and others.
Basically, I think that the reason people don't program as much as some would like has nothing to do with access to programming environments.
I think the author's point about how computers used to come with programming manuals is a good one. The spirit is different. The computer environments now are, in my opinion, better for learning programming. More languages are installed by default or easily available and the Internet is much better for learning than the books I remember using. But this kind of assumption that people would be buying a computer in order to mess around with Basic or Hypercard no longer seems to be the rule.
I was actually kind of impressed with the Sugar environment when I tried it out with my nephews. They spent a lot more time experimenting with the thing than I even expected. Something was different about that system. It encouraged exploration in a way that their normal YouTube and video game habits didn't. Maybe it was just the nature of the applications.
I'm a pythonista myself. The instructions to someone wanting to do Python are:
- find out what platform they are using (Unix, Windows, Mac, iDevice, Android etc)
- Ensure Python gets installed or is accessible (add in version 2 versus 3, 32 bit versus 64 bit)
- Work out what the text editor or "IDE" will be
- Enter the code (no gotos in Python)
- Run the code and view the output
While these hoops are nothing for you or me, they are significant for others. Note how people report A/B testing showing that extra steps towards various goals results in big dropoffs.
Incidentally this is what repl.it does with QBasic:
> 10 print "hello"
Parse failed: Syntax error at 1:10: Token("hello")
> help
=> 0
I understand your point, but I think it comes down to self-discovery. Using the C=64 (and other home computers of the era) enabled you to discover that programming existed as a thing, and then to learn more by digging deeper. Modern computers are much, much better at the digging deeper side of the equation, but completely fail on creating the initial spark of interest.
In my experience, if you can create that initial spark with your kids (as I did with my daughter, just by showing her the C=64 programming book I had as a kid), then they _will_ want to know more.
Basically, I think that the reason people don't program as much as some would like has nothing to do with access to programming environments.