5 ms·

Logo was a hard pill to swallow in the 1980's. It had some neat features 'on paper' but it was hard to appreciate them because it was agonizingly slow on the c

by ken 6y ago

Logo was a hard pill to swallow in the 1980's. It had some neat features 'on paper' but it was hard to appreciate them because it was agonizingly slow on the computers of the day. It was the first programming experience I ever had where I'd type in my function, and then had to wait a while for the computer to do something to it (it never used the word "compiler"), and then it could run. I remember thinking: this makes programming not-fun. I could write it in assembler faster than I'm waiting for the "...." to dance across the screen.

TheBlight 6y ago
I never really thought of LOGO as a programming language as a kid. It just seemed like a game to me. I also had no concept of anything with a computer being fast or slow so its speed seemed normal.
- ken 6y ago
  That's an interesting connection. Logo claimed to be "interactive" but staring at a compilation log go by for 30 or 60 (or more) seconds really pushed the limits of what one might consider "interactive". Whereas, "Robot Odyssey" was an actual game, and it was a terrific way to get me even more interested in programming. You never had to just sit and wait on it -- or maybe you did but they disguised it so well with animation or loading screens or whatever that I never noticed.
  - TheBlight 6y ago
    I don't remember the details but I remember some of the kids who were good at math would get to go to the computer room sometimes and instead of math class and we'd make LOGO programs or do other stuff on Commodore PETs. Just seemed like fun. We each had to bring our own disk with our name on it. This was like 2nd and 3rd grade.
DonHopkins 6y ago
Reminds me of a comic I saw in an old Apple ][ magazine: (One kid talking to another, with dad in the background hunched over an Apple ][.) "Daddy's playing Pascal. That's where you try and see how many dots you can get before it beeps and you say nasty words."
kjs3 6y ago
I honestly can't think of anything more "missing the entire point" of a language like Logo than "I could write in assembler faster...".
- zozbot234 6y ago
  Why? 8-bit assembler was simpler and easier to learn than most programming languages. It kinda had to be, given the constraints on CPU's at the time. (And drawing text or graphics was simply a matter of setting values in a memory-mapped frame buffer. Quite trivial, overall.)
  - kjs3 6y ago
    With all due respect, bullshit. Preface: I go back to the 70s in programming. I've done 8-bit on 8080/Z80, 68xx/68hc11, 8051, SMT8, 6502 and 2650. I've taught programming. Let's ignore the challenge of finding an assembler running on a common 8-bit home computer and getting it running and how much the early ones sucked. Let's ignore how little doco there was for those early 8-bits (no internet, remember). Let's ignore how user-hostile the debugging and error messages were. Was it easier to explain to a kid "repeat 4 [forward 50 right 50]" or a bunch of memory pokes and all the boilerplate required to get an assembly language program to do anything. You're special, of course...I get it...superior in your own mind. But based on my own experience, for the vast majority of lesser humans by your measure, Logo is a lot easier than asm as an intro to programming.
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      > Was it easier to explain to a kid "repeat 4 [forward 50 right 50]" or a bunch of memory pokes and all the boilerplate required to get an assembly language program to do anything. One would think that there's a useful middle ground. My favorite approach would be a FORTHy, postfix-based language where you'd write something like [|50 fd 90 rt] 4 repeat. Something like that would be comparatively easy to implement using a threaded-code approach on a 8-bit machine, which would provide an easy segue into lower-level, assembly programming.
linguistbreaker 6y ago
When I was a kid my dad had an Apple II+ and I liked it - definitely don't remember it being slow. MY other two games were Sticky Bear Bop and Defender.
- linguistbreaker 6y ago
  fwiw I was 6 and i thought it was a game and enjoyed it.

by ken 6y ago

TheBlight 6y ago

I never really thought of LOGO as a programming language as a kid. It just seemed like a game to me. I also had no concept of anything with a computer being fast or slow so its speed seemed normal.

ken 6y ago
That's an interesting connection. Logo claimed to be "interactive" but staring at a compilation log go by for 30 or 60 (or more) seconds really pushed the limits of what one might consider "interactive". Whereas, "Robot Odyssey" was an actual game, and it was a terrific way to get me even more interested in programming. You never had to just sit and wait on it -- or maybe you did but they disguised it so well with animation or loading screens or whatever that I never noticed.
- TheBlight 6y ago
  I don't remember the details but I remember some of the kids who were good at math would get to go to the computer room sometimes and instead of math class and we'd make LOGO programs or do other stuff on Commodore PETs. Just seemed like fun. We each had to bring our own disk with our name on it. This was like 2nd and 3rd grade.

DonHopkins 6y ago

Reminds me of a comic I saw in an old Apple ][ magazine: (One kid talking to another, with dad in the background hunched over an Apple ][.) "Daddy's playing Pascal. That's where you try and see how many dots you can get before it beeps and you say nasty words."

kjs3 6y ago

I honestly can't think of anything more "missing the entire point" of a language like Logo than "I could write in assembler faster...".

zozbot234 6y ago
Why? 8-bit assembler was simpler and easier to learn than most programming languages. It kinda had to be, given the constraints on CPU's at the time. (And drawing text or graphics was simply a matter of setting values in a memory-mapped frame buffer. Quite trivial, overall.)
- kjs3 6y ago
  With all due respect, bullshit. Preface: I go back to the 70s in programming. I've done 8-bit on 8080/Z80, 68xx/68hc11, 8051, SMT8, 6502 and 2650. I've taught programming. Let's ignore the challenge of finding an assembler running on a common 8-bit home computer and getting it running and how much the early ones sucked. Let's ignore how little doco there was for those early 8-bits (no internet, remember). Let's ignore how user-hostile the debugging and error messages were. Was it easier to explain to a kid "repeat 4 [forward 50 right 50]" or a bunch of memory pokes and all the boilerplate required to get an assembly language program to do anything. You're special, of course...I get it...superior in your own mind. But based on my own experience, for the vast majority of lesser humans by your measure, Logo is a lot easier than asm as an intro to programming.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    > Was it easier to explain to a kid "repeat 4 [forward 50 right 50]" or a bunch of memory pokes and all the boilerplate required to get an assembly language program to do anything. One would think that there's a useful middle ground. My favorite approach would be a FORTHy, postfix-based language where you'd write something like [|50 fd 90 rt] 4 repeat. Something like that would be comparatively easy to implement using a threaded-code approach on a 8-bit machine, which would provide an easy segue into lower-level, assembly programming.

linguistbreaker 6y ago

When I was a kid my dad had an Apple II+ and I liked it - definitely don't remember it being slow. MY other two games were Sticky Bear Bop and Defender.

linguistbreaker 6y ago
fwiw I was 6 and i thought it was a game and enjoyed it.