Why?
I think it is great that Bruce Willis brings attention to the topic. My father gave me his record collection. He was able to do so, because he owned it. Will current/next generations be able to do the same?
Possibly, but as far as I can see, all it adds to the mix (that textual teaching languages, e.g. LOGO, don't have) is the certain impossibility of certain syntax errors by only allowing certain parts to click together[1]. The semantic model behind the system is otherwise identical to BASIC or some other ALGOL-ish programming language, with loops and subroutines and mutable variables and so forth. It is quite probable that this might make some tasks easier, especially to a wholly inexperienced programmer, but what I assert are the real challenges of learning to program—algorithmic thinking, code organization, reasoning about program state, &c—remain just as difficult.
[1]: It also only allows variables to be specified from an extendable set, preventing certain problems with unbound or misspelled variables. I can see the possibility of also preventing type errors by constraining shapes further, e.g. all integers could be circular while booleans are hexagonal, so and would have two hexagonal spaces while + would have two circles. If I'm not mistaken, Scratch does something like this, although I do not know how far it is taken there. It would be interesting to see how far this can be developed to constrain the space of possible incorrect programs.
