I think part of the point jgalt212 is making is LOGO is a language while scratch is an environment. LOGO very obviously maps from sequences of lexemes to actio

I think part of the point jgalt212 is making is LOGO is a language while scratch is an environment. LOGO very obviously maps from sequences of lexemes to actions while that association in Scratch is a bit muddied. You can open a code browser and start typing, but the whole environment is designed to allow you to do interesting things without every typing a line of code (well... maybe a few lines of code. But a LOT fewer than with LOGO.) I think it depends on what you're trying to teach kids. For young kids, scratch is probably a fine introduction to basic procedural coding (which is kind of funny since it's implemented in a descendant of the prototypical OO environment.) You can teach the same concepts with LOGO, and they did in the 70s. But it's a LOT easier to teach things like language processing and language concepts like recursion and evaluation with LOGO. But there's some question about whether or not kids younger than 8 or 9 can internalize these concepts. In the states we even hold off until around age 12 or 13 before introducing such things.