LOGO-L> Re: Why not a sequential ToonTalk?

[bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)]

"Ken Kahn" <KenKahn@ToonTalk.com> writes:
>It is true that you hit the ball before you run around the bases. The design
>question here is whether you make a more complex language and implementation
>and support both parallel and sequential executions or not. I chose to keep
>things simple.

I think this may be the core of our disagreement.  It's not quite clear from
that sentence whether you mean "simple for the implementor" or "simple for
the user."  If the former, we disagree in principle.  If the latter, we
disagree about user interface strategy.  I'm not convinced that simplicity
means "give the user a hammer and teach him that everything is a nail"!

You started this whole discussion by saying that computer science has moved
on since Logo, and we should support new paradigms.  So I think it's worth
noting that the mainstream languages that support parallelism and OOP haven't
thrown out other expressive mechanisms; afaik that's unique to TT.


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