3 ms·
I am an unabashed nanochess fanboy but it’s not really Logo without lists and functions.
by buescher 3y ago
I am an unabashed nanochess fanboy but it’s not really Logo without lists and functions.
- jhbadger 3y agoTrue. People often think Logo is just turtle graphics, but it really is a complete programming language that is, despite the syntax, actually related to Lisp. Brian Harvey even wrote a series of intro CS texts using Logo that didn't use turtle graphics at all. Brian's home page has the full text of them. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/ (that being said, I get that full Logo would not be possible in 508 bytes)
- 082349872349872 3y agoIt seems to be the fate of programming languages (especially ones few people currently use) to get stereotyped by a small fraction of their utility. I guess the best we can hope for is that the stereotype (Lisp: parens; C: segfaults) is at least tangentially related to the reasons people use the language, as opposed to completely unrelated stereotypes (Logo: turtle; ??: ??).