LOGO-L> Re: Is Boxer better?

[lahvak@math.mps.ohio-state.edu (Jan Hlavacek)]

On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 11:54:17 -0800, Ken Kahn <KenKahn@ToonTalk.com>
wrote:
> A recent post here referred to diSessa's "Twenty Reasons Why You Should Use
> Boxer (Instead of Logo)".
>
> I read it and found it pretty convincing. Is he right? Is Boxer better than
> Logo?

I haven't have a chance to try boxer, so all I know about it is
described in the above mentioned article and a couple more papers I got
from the same web site.  So this comment is entirely based on my
impression of what boxer does.

I believe that one of the great strengths of logo is its "artistic" side.
You can very easily make beautiful and interesting pictures,  with some
versions of logo even animations and sounds.  This way even somebody who
is not "technologically" oriented can find motivation for programming.
In logo,  you have the whole screen and various number of turtles and
color at your disposition.

My impression of boxer is that you can create graphics on a lid of a
box,  but in order to do it,  you need some tools,  so the box has to be
contained inside some other box and so on.  This can be distracting.  Is
there a way in boxer how to make a big picture taking up almost entire
screen,  with as little things attached to it as possible?  Can it be
done in an easy way?

My impression is that boxer is very "technological",  with the whole
idea of "tools" and so on.  I like this very much,  but I can imagine
that it may drive away somebody who just wants to play with the turtle
and draw pictures.



--
Jan Hlav\'{a}\v{c}ek
lahvak@math.mps.ohio-state.edu  (Blind Carbon Copies will bounce)
www: http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~lahvak/



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