2 ms·
LOGO was written decades before TCL and even half a decade before Smalltalk (which Wikipedia lists as one of the languages that LOGO influenced). > The first f
by shagie 4y ago
LOGO was written decades before TCL and even half a decade before Smalltalk (which Wikipedia lists as one of the languages that LOGO influenced).
> The first four years of Logo research, development and teaching work was done at BBN. The first implementation of Logo, called Ghost, was written in LISP on a PDP-1. The goal was to create a mathematical land where children could play with words and sentences. Modeled on LISP, the design goals of Logo included accessible power and informative error messages.
> Logo was a primary influence on the Smalltalk programming language. It is also the main influence on the Etoys educational programming environment and language, which is essentially a Logo variant written in Squeak (itself a variant of Smalltalk)
http://worrydream.com/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk/ http://worrydream.com/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk/ for more on how LOGO influenced Smalltalk design.
- lmm 4y agoFew would consider Smalltalk to be a LISP.
- shagie 4y agoI'm not claiming that Smalltalk is a LISP. I am saying that LOGO is old. It was written the same year that BCPL (the predecessor for C) was written. To say that LOGO is a member of {language family}, it should be restricted to languages that were in use at that time. LOGO is a member of the LISP language family. From there, it also went on to influence many other influential languages.
- lmm 4y ago"Family" perhaps, but calling it a LISP is going too far when it doesn't have true macros (indeed most implementations have no macros at all). And to my mind the close similarity with TCL as a language is a lot more interesting than the details history, even- especially - if it's a point in the design space which both languages discovered independently rather than a case of one influencing the other.