It's highly available but not accessible, ie immediately graspable by a new user. For example, most tutorials take the view that before you can write any JS you first have to know (or learn about) creating a basic web page. Of course, this is quite often what people want to do, but on the other hand they might be better off using node.js or some other hosted interpreter like http://math.chapman.edu/~jipsen/js/

I think there's a lot of value in letting people approach programming through doing very simple stuff such as automating calculations. Of course a potential downside to that, which was a big problem for Basic, is that this can get in the way of learning about program structure early on and encourages spaghetti code.

Except the cost, no replacements for those cheap 8-bits such as the ZX-81, Vic 20, or Atari 400. Computer programming is less accessible than in the late 70's and early 80's.

Codeacademy seems to be the way most of my friends are getting into programming. Since you code in a sort of virtual browser, there is almost zero barrier to entry. I have seen only one person go from this to real professional programming (out of ~20), so I do not know if it really is more accessible in the ways that count, but it has been an interesting trend anyway.

Android tablets? They are cheaper than the 8-bit micros of the 70s and 80s, outselling everything, and come with Javascript. The only problem is they don't usually come with much of a proper keyboard + text editor for editing code. So, a kid still has to take some initiative to get a bit of software before being able to actually code something. (Kind of lame, I hope that changes - it was nice being a kid when computers were programmable out of the box without requiring anything extra. Then again, we didn't have the internet back then, so getting new stuff into the computer wasn't as simple.)

You know what's also cheaper than an 8-bit in the 80s? Full computers today. The cheapest Windows machines, desktop or laptop, are about $300–400, from Dell, for example. In 1984, a Commodore 64 was about $200, or $450 if you include one disk drive. But with inflation, that's $451 and $1016 respectively in today's dollars.

But you could get a ZX81 for only $25, which is $56 in today's dollars. But that's about the price of a Raspberry Pi.

I don't buy the inflation argument because low income parent aren't going to spend the $400 where $100 was doable. Plus, we've spent decades telling everyone computers get cheaper every year which is bull.

I could get a ZX81 and Atari 400 in retail stores, the average non-tech parent has no hope of ordering a Raspberry Pi.

"we've spent decades telling everyone computers get cheaper every year which is bull."

What? The above post just discredited that. Remember, you have to factor in inflation and equivalent purchasing power.

The fact about ordering a Raspberry Pi is more about distribution than price.

If you want to look at ZX81 equivalents, you have extremely cheap Android-powered devices. In my country (3rd world) you can get an awful Android tablet for U$ 50 (your ZX81 equivalent). Not to mention EVERY school-age child in my country owns a computer (because we bought into OLPC).

I agree that it's harder to learn programming on a tablet than on a ZX81 (which cheated by not including a display).

If you count a computer with no displa as an equivalent, you can buy a refurbished tower with no monitor for U$ 50 (and they are sold in stores here).

"Remember, you have to factor in inflation and equivalent purchasing power."

When people talk about computers getting cheaper, particularly the car comparison that Bill Gates made, they don't factor in either. Low income families in 80s could come up with $100 easier than they can come up with $600 now. Non-techincal parent don't buy their kids refurbished and have no hope of getting a Raspberry Pi in a condition that their kids can learn to program on. OLPC is a government partnership program that has not been generally available in the US except as a 2 for 1.