🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <15l2tiINNkec@agate.berkeley.edu> bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) writes:
>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.
>

[ lines deleted ]

>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.
>

hi.

I used 4 years ago this nifty thing on the Macintosh called The Visual
Programming Language and ProGraph.  The VPL is quite like the Boxer
language you described, using boxes and icons to represent various
programming constructs.  It is a lot like programming in a procedural
language with most of the code already written; you only fill in the
blanks (for loop, set the starting value, set the ending value, connect
the box(es) to make the body of the loop).

Prograph on the other hand is very OO.  I couldn't figure it out at the
time but it seemed promising with the same way of 'programming' as VPL
but with classes and all that OO stuff.

what do you think of these alternatives, with regards to the
intellectual depth you refer to ?

d0c


-- 
 ______  Bao Phac (Paul) Do  | Silence = Death
 \    /  P.O. Box 655        | Straight men suck, but we suck better !
  \  /   Mont-Royal, Quebec  | QUEERS BASH BACK! 
   \/    H3P 3G4  CANADA     |                  -=> doctor@info.polymtl.ca