LOGO-L> visual versus text programming

[KERRB@Magill.UniSA.edu.au]

Thanks to those who helped me with this query (Antonius, John, David and Dale).

Sorry, my email has been bouncing for the last few days. Seems Ok now.

Here's the post (worth posting again IMO because of the incisive list of 
essentials that Brian provides). But I have a question, for Brian (or others):-

What is the distinction b/w creating procedures and composing functions??
In the study I have been doing the words procedures, functions and methods seem 
to be used interchangeably being equivalent to a verb, something you do. Apart 
from that little quibble I reckon Brian's 5 point summary is both elegant and 
meaningful.

-- Bill Kerr

mikedoyle@cix.compulink.co.uk (Mike Doyle) writes:
>Perhaps it would be possible to demonstrate why the alphanumeric approac=
h
>implied by the use of Logo is preferable to the pictographic approach?

I don't think that's exactly the issue.  I, at least, would be happy with=

a pictorgraphic programming language provided that you can
        create procedures
        give names to things
        compose functions
        create data aggregates
        use recursion

A serious attempt to provide such a language is the Function Machines
program by Wally Feurzeig's group at BBN.  It's really great for some
purposes, namely, the sort of dataflow-driven computation exemplified
by the use of analog computers to solve differential equations.  You
can watch the numbers cycle through the machine and get closer and closer=

to the desired solution.  But I find it awkward for most other kinds
of programming.

If the Lego software can do all of the above, I won't complain about it.
But that's not my impression.





---------------------------------------------------------------
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.