Re: LOGO-L> Re: Report on Lego

[mikedoyle@cix.compulink.co.uk (Mike Doyle)]

In-Reply-To: <199802230127.AA19203@moon.pepperdine.edu>
Gary

Why should the lack of Logo programmability concern us?

LEGO, classically, have used non-linguistic instructions for their kits to 
make them (human) language independent and thereby international and cross 
cultural. To use the graphic power of a modern computer to enable them to 
regain consistency in their approach to technology would appear laudable. 
LEGO might argue that they are simply shifting from an alphabetic to a 
pictographic language representation system. The spoken-language 
independence of the pictographic approach, it might be argued, will make 
understanding across cultures easier and hence international cooperation 
between children easier. The Chinese demonstrated the value of such an 
approach for more than three millennia.

Perhaps it would be possible to demonstrate why the alphanumeric approach 
implied by the use of Logo is preferable to the pictographic approach? 

Micheal O Duill

---------------------------------------------------------------
Please post messages to the Logo forum to logo-l@gsn.org.  Mail
questions about the list administration to logofdn@gsn.org.  To
unsubscribe send    unsubscribe logo-l    to majordomo@gsn.org.