3 ms·
Wasn't it predictable, though? Take a look at that issue of BYTE entirely dedicated to LOGO that was referenced multiple times in this discussion. A dozen art
by hota_mazi 4y ago
Wasn't it predictable, though?
Take a look at that issue of BYTE entirely dedicated to LOGO that was referenced multiple times in this discussion.
A dozen articles about the language, with listings. The screenshots? All the same, showing recursive pictures of rectangles and circles. Great. LOGO can do that. But what else? Big empty void there.
Contrast that with what BASIC could do at the time... Is it any wonder LOGO died out and BASIC thrived?
- zozbot234 4y ago> Contrast that with what BASIC could do at the time... Is it any wonder LOGO died out and BASIC thrived? AIUI, implementations of BASIC on home computers were a lot simpler and more straightforward than LOGO or LISP - for instance, GC in BASIC was an afterthought and only applied to strings. The real competitor to BASIC back then was FORTH.
- hota_mazi 4y agoMmmh... no. I grew up and learned programming in that era, bought magazines, typed pages and pages of listings. 98% of the listings in these magazines were BASIC, 1% were assembly, and the rest was... well, others. LOGO was a niche language then, and Forth even more so.
- bmitc 4y agoWhat could Basic do over Logo? As a few of the books I posted show, Logo is a very capable language, ignoring turtles. Was Logo in the 80s somehow less capable?
- abecedarius 4y ago> Big empty void See my comment upthread about Turtle Geometry.