5 ms·

Was I the only person who did not understand the draw of Logo as a kid? Having to use it in school made me feel like the world viewed me as a lobotomy victim.

Was I the only person who did not understand the draw of Logo as a kid? Having to use it in school made me feel like the world viewed me as a lobotomy victim. And today, whenever one of these teaching-kids-to-program language/environments comes out, I always wonder, "is a real language really beyond the 8-10 year old's grasp?" More importantly, wouldn't using something real be more interesting to kids? The excitement of computers was, for me, about what you could do with them, and if that meant having to learn some scary looking "computer language" then—By God—I would! And it would be exciting! The turtle did nothing for me except count the minutes before I could go and do something else. Thankfully we had a public library that had computer books. They weren't the best, but they were about real computer things. I wish someone had introduced me to Lisp as a child. It's so fundamental. I remember thinking in similar terms, and would have had my mind blown on so many different levels if someone had introduced me to Lisp when I was 8-10, or even younger.

zitterbewegung 9y ago
I had the opposite experience. I would read my Math book and read about Logo. But, I never experienced a class that taught me how to use Logo. Eventually I taught myself how to code in Scheme in high school but eschewed going into AP CS which I realize was a mistake.
__s 9y ago
This project is about introducing Lisp to children (or anyone interested in learning)
flavio81 9y ago
Logo is a far more powerful programming language than what it would appear at first sight.
- protomyth 9y ago
  Yeah, we had it on one of the new Apple IIe computers our high school received. Fooling around with the graphics was fun for a while, but when I got to read one of the Logo books and it got to all the other things in the language, it became a very cool experience. I think Logo and 6502 assembler made me look at the top and bottom of programming in an amazing way. I will always be grateful for that.
mmargerum 9y ago
Logo was the first language I learned in an apple ii. It was instrumental in me discovering I liked programming.
tosh 9y ago
controlling turtle robots https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5836/AIM-248.pdf?sequence=2 https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5836/AIM-248.... or stitching patterns http://www.turtlestitch.org/ http://www.turtlestitch.org/ might be more engaging
nikofeyn 9y ago
check out the book "turtle geometry: the computer as a medium for exploring mathematics" by abelson (of sicp fame) and diSessa. it's a wonderful book that shows a how a turtle language and the resulting geometry can be used to explore serious ideas.
javajosh 9y ago
Logo on an Apple IIe was my first language. I was in second grade, and I enjoyed it immensely. Partly it was because I quickly moved to making animations with it, rather than static drawings. When I made a working analog clock (there was no pause() that I knew of so I made the turtle spin in place to simulate one, and had to measure the correct number of spins!). Of course, with animations you can do arbitrary things, like build games.
kbp 9y ago
> Was I the only person who did not understand the draw of Logo as a kid? Having to use it in school made me feel like the world viewed me as a lobotomy victim. > And today, whenever one of these teaching-kids-to-program language/environments comes out, I always wonder, "is a real language really beyond the 8-10 year old's grasp?" > I wish someone had introduced me to Lisp as a child. It's so fundamental. I remember thinking in similar terms, and would have had my mind blown on so many different levels if someone had introduced me to Lisp when I was 8-10, or even younger. Logo is a real language, and it is extremely similar to Lisp; a lot of people even just refer to it as a Lisp dialect. There's a lot more to Logo than turtle graphics, the same way there's a lot more to Racket or Python or any other language that has a turtle graphics package. Basically, you were more or less introduced to Lisp when you were a kid, and having to use it in school made you feel like the world viewed you as a lobotomy victim. The problem you encountered probably stems less from Logo and more from being taught Logo by teachers who barely knew it themselves, and who didn't care about or understand anything beyond turtle graphics, so that's all they're able to teach to students. Here's a good introduction to Logo by Brian Harvey with an emphasis on symbolic computation: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computer-science-logo-style https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computer-science-logo-style
- linkmotif 9y ago
  Thank you! What you describe regarding my experience might very well be possible. And I will look at Logo again. I am sure you are right regarding its design and foundation. You quoted my question about teaching-kids-to-program languages, but didn't really address it. Are they necessary? Might they not be detrimental? A kid who's interested in programming: wouldn't they be a lot more excited by, say, HTML and JavaScript—which brings the ability to make websites (!!) —than say, moving a robot, virtual or real. Then again, it is inherently hugely fun to interact with computers in a REPL-style manner, too. I just never felt inspired by the turtle and only kind of resented it. I wanted to learn about bits and bytes and to understand computers.
cr0sh 9y ago
In addition to all that has been said, if you really want to understand what Logo is, what it teaches, why, etc - then you need to read about it from the man who invented it: http://www.papert.org/ http://www.papert.org/ Want to know why Lego Mindstorms exists? Well... https://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful-Ideas/dp/0465046746 https://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerfu... That's the work you need to read - but really, learn about the man, learn about Logo. As others have noted, it's more than just turtle graphics - so much more. Unfortunately, educators still have not grasped his ideas fully, and if you look closely, what is often touted out there for teaching children and others programming - is essentially his ideas, reimplemented poorly. He has written more on the subject than that one book; and his thoughts and ideas (and Logo itself) aren't really about teaching children programming, but teaching children how to think computationally, algorithmically. He saw how and where things were heading long before many others, and he worked to try to get people prepared. Sadly, all people grasped was turtle graphics, but not the larger picture. I often wonder where we'd be today had more people truly understood and implemented his (and, to be honest, his "muse" / "mentor" / "inspiration", if you will, in Piaget) methods and thoughts on teaching. Most likely in a much better position as a society...

zitterbewegung 9y ago

I had the opposite experience. I would read my Math book and read about Logo. But, I never experienced a class that taught me how to use Logo. Eventually I taught myself how to code in Scheme in high school but eschewed going into AP CS which I realize was a mistake.

__s 9y ago

This project is about introducing Lisp to children (or anyone interested in learning)

flavio81 9y ago

Logo is a far more powerful programming language than what it would appear at first sight.

protomyth 9y ago
Yeah, we had it on one of the new Apple IIe computers our high school received. Fooling around with the graphics was fun for a while, but when I got to read one of the Logo books and it got to all the other things in the language, it became a very cool experience. I think Logo and 6502 assembler made me look at the top and bottom of programming in an amazing way. I will always be grateful for that.

mmargerum 9y ago

Logo was the first language I learned in an apple ii. It was instrumental in me discovering I liked programming.

tosh 9y ago

controlling turtle robots https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5836/AIM-248.pdf?sequence=2 https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5836/AIM-248.... or stitching patterns http://www.turtlestitch.org/ http://www.turtlestitch.org/ might be more engaging

nikofeyn 9y ago

check out the book "turtle geometry: the computer as a medium for exploring mathematics" by abelson (of sicp fame) and diSessa. it's a wonderful book that shows a how a turtle language and the resulting geometry can be used to explore serious ideas.

javajosh 9y ago

Logo on an Apple IIe was my first language. I was in second grade, and I enjoyed it immensely. Partly it was because I quickly moved to making animations with it, rather than static drawings. When I made a working analog clock (there was no pause() that I knew of so I made the turtle spin in place to simulate one, and had to measure the correct number of spins!). Of course, with animations you can do arbitrary things, like build games.

kbp 9y ago

> Was I the only person who did not understand the draw of Logo as a kid? Having to use it in school made me feel like the world viewed me as a lobotomy victim. > And today, whenever one of these teaching-kids-to-program language/environments comes out, I always wonder, "is a real language really beyond the 8-10 year old's grasp?" > I wish someone had introduced me to Lisp as a child. It's so fundamental. I remember thinking in similar terms, and would have had my mind blown on so many different levels if someone had introduced me to Lisp when I was 8-10, or even younger. Logo is a real language, and it is extremely similar to Lisp; a lot of people even just refer to it as a Lisp dialect. There's a lot more to Logo than turtle graphics, the same way there's a lot more to Racket or Python or any other language that has a turtle graphics package. Basically, you were more or less introduced to Lisp when you were a kid, and having to use it in school made you feel like the world viewed you as a lobotomy victim. The problem you encountered probably stems less from Logo and more from being taught Logo by teachers who barely knew it themselves, and who didn't care about or understand anything beyond turtle graphics, so that's all they're able to teach to students. Here's a good introduction to Logo by Brian Harvey with an emphasis on symbolic computation: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computer-science-logo-style https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/computer-science-logo-style

linkmotif 9y ago
Thank you! What you describe regarding my experience might very well be possible. And I will look at Logo again. I am sure you are right regarding its design and foundation. You quoted my question about teaching-kids-to-program languages, but didn't really address it. Are they necessary? Might they not be detrimental? A kid who's interested in programming: wouldn't they be a lot more excited by, say, HTML and JavaScript—which brings the ability to make websites (!!) —than say, moving a robot, virtual or real. Then again, it is inherently hugely fun to interact with computers in a REPL-style manner, too. I just never felt inspired by the turtle and only kind of resented it. I wanted to learn about bits and bytes and to understand computers.

cr0sh 9y ago

In addition to all that has been said, if you really want to understand what Logo is, what it teaches, why, etc - then you need to read about it from the man who invented it: http://www.papert.org/ http://www.papert.org/ Want to know why Lego Mindstorms exists? Well... https://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful-Ideas/dp/0465046746 https://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerfu... That's the work you need to read - but really, learn about the man, learn about Logo. As others have noted, it's more than just turtle graphics - so much more. Unfortunately, educators still have not grasped his ideas fully, and if you look closely, what is often touted out there for teaching children and others programming - is essentially his ideas, reimplemented poorly. He has written more on the subject than that one book; and his thoughts and ideas (and Logo itself) aren't really about teaching children programming, but teaching children how to think computationally, algorithmically. He saw how and where things were heading long before many others, and he worked to try to get people prepared. Sadly, all people grasped was turtle graphics, but not the larger picture. I often wonder where we'd be today had more people truly understood and implemented his (and, to be honest, his "muse" / "mentor" / "inspiration", if you will, in Piaget) methods and thoughts on teaching. Most likely in a much better position as a society...