Article View: comp.lang.logo
Article #29Re: Logo is based on 1960s programming language research
From: Brian Harvey
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1992 05:00
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1992 05:00
40 lines
2603 bytes
2603 bytes
Hi, Ken. Do you know about Boxer? It's the "successor to Logo" originally designed by Hal Abelson and Andy diSessa, with continuing development by Andy at Berkeley. It's a kind of "visual programming" using boxes to represent both scope and block structure. There have been lots of integrations of parallelism into Logo. Besides *Logo, which you mentioned, there's TLC Logo, RM Logo, and even the otherwise execrable Radio Shack Logo. But I'm not convinced that technical progress is the most important thing we need right now. (Of course people should work on technical things; I'm not trying to argue against that. Just that I don't think it's the most important thing to worry about.) It doesn't seem to me that technical limitations are mainly what's standing in the way of education reform via Logo (or in general). For one thing, even the existing Logo has technical capabilities that are hardly ever used. There is by now a pretty substantial literature about using Logo at the high school level (such as the MIT Press books I listed a few messages ago), but they're not exactly best sellers. Most of the Logo work in practice is still along the square-triangle-house lines. Another thing is that even the Logo community has backed away from the radical critique of the institution of schooling that we started with in the 60s. Everyone now talks about "integrating Logo into the curriculum." In other words, use Logo to do the same stuff you would have done anyway, what your principal wants you to do. By the way, I'm skeptical about "visual programming" if you mean something along the lines of Pinball Construction Kit or Hypercard. I think that that sort of thing achieves slickness at the expense of intellectual depth. That sounds pretty abstract; I guess I mean that you don't learn to think like a hacker (like a problem-solver, if you prefer) from pushing icons around. That's a lot of loose threads to contribute to your desired discussion! I'm not sure where they all lead to but maybe other people will continue some of them.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<15l2tiINNkec@agate.berkeley.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bhReferences:
<KAHN.92Aug3123921@m31.parc.xerox.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bh From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) Newsgroups: comp.lang.logo Subject: Re: Logo is based on 1960s programming language research Message-ID: <15l2tiINNkec@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 4 Aug 92 05:00:34 GMT References: <KAHN.92Aug3123921@m31.parc.xerox.com> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 40 NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu