Earlyfire's crosspost from Logoforum on the nature of the Logo Language

[mwforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Harvey Bornfield)]

> X-eGroups-Return: 
> sentto-2155427-7170-1031677750-earlyfire=earthlink.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Sender: earlyfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Apparently-To: LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Sender: earlyfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> To: LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: Harvey Bornfield <earlyfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Mailing-List: list LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; contact 
> LogoForum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Delivered-To: mailing list LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:LogoForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:08:05 -0700
> Subject: Re: [LogoForum] Digest Number 745
> Reply-To: LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> A top-line rather than bottom line rendition of the essence of Logo.
> (After all, If one requires ground-rules, one must also allow 'sky-rules')
>
> The Logo programming language, as conceived by Papert was created 
> initially as an technology environment which focuses and echos, inspires 
> and intends above all else to manifest, to clothe a constructionist 
> educational philosophy. When I think, better, when I imagine what 
> constructionism is all about as an attitude and world-view I see it as a 
> technological tool whose role in educational infrastructures is to kindle 
> and strengthen a "way of life" we might loosely define as being both a 
> servant and mentor of discovery and pioneering paradigms. A discussion of 
> its specific powers seem to us somewhat less important than clarifying its 
> intent in child-friendly enterprise.
>
> Following through on this train of thought, the very reason for existence 
> of this language is not so much to achieve the product-oriented objectives 
> of other programming languages, but in place of end-product, to encourage 
> entry into process, to explore how dreaming and doing coalesce in what is 
> called authoring, with its richness of ongoing dialogue between 
> brainstorming and revision. Put another way, Logo, which "lives in the 
> place" where the invention, the molecular disassembly and the reinvention 
> of the wheel can thrive, is more about the practice side of 'practice 
> makes perfect", and seeks to provide a theater in which teachers can 
> elongate the time-interval between when an idea arises as a 'brushstroke' 
> of creativity, and when it reaches glove of final outer architecture. So 
> it is, that In observing what Logo implicitly facilitates, we see strong 
> evidence that the terse, assembly-line, experimentation-intolerant Nike 
> slash American "Just Do It" mandate is softened, is expanded, telescopes 
> out into malleable, forgiving, "easy-to-revise, easy-to-tweak" theater of 
> activity.
>
> In a very real sense, this sets Logo apart from other languages. For we 
> can fairly say that what coerces achievement and fills gradebooks serves 
> the notion of teaching, of managerially-directed intent, whereas what 
> serves the imagination involved in exploratory process represents, 
> inspires and honors learning. This distinction is one of Papert's fulcrum 
> ideas to justify how Logo  exists, (thank God), to robustly sabotage 
> formularistic, top-down firing-squad pedagogy, (the educational "Axis of 
> Evil" ) by free and genuine acts of authoring.
>
> Now it is also possible to define what links the myriad variations across 
> the vary wide spectrum of the numerous implementations of Logo together in 
> ways which enjoy a far greater specificity of definition than what we have 
> proposed is the orientation of the language, but we have yet to be 
> convinced that the subtle difference in the powers of the language, the 
> vocabulary of circles of overlapping and disjunct sets of commands and 
> reporters, the object-oriented extensions in the programming environment, 
> are anything but a distant understudy and second fiddle to regarding 
> philosophy of the language as fundamental to its purpose.
>
> Where Logo has most happily benefitted most from in daring recent 
> implementations has been in large measure achieved by 
> importing/incorporating powerful ideas fundamental to the
> 1. paradigms of message passing (in Microworlds if done?, wait until, 
> touching?),
> 2. homespun object and class-definition capability (turtlesown),
> 3. simultaneously running parallel processes interrogatable under user-control
>
> This friendliness to coalese with such currently expanding trends which 
> live in VB, Java, C#, etc, bodes well for its future and prophecies the 
> direction of its future maturation, perhaps as a compilable tool which can 
> possibility thrive in the hands of the software developer as well as the 
> child. (Blurred From the New Testament: "Except as the software developer 
> become as an elementary school student.........")
>
> In short, ( since many of us know not what we do, ;-)))  )
> Logo is to pencil as other programming languages are to indelible ink.
>
> Harvey
>
>
>
>
> At 11:59 AM 9/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
> > Gary McCallister wrote:
> >
> > >Yes!  Actually this goes a long way towards defining Logo for me.
> > >
> > Although there is a Logo community, I'm pretty sure that Logo means
> > something unique and distinct to each member.
> >
> > I'd also add that some of the most admired feature in Logo (admired at
> > least by me):
> >
> > 1. the ability to dynamically create variables/routines and to access
> > them indirectly
> >
> > 2. the ability to create and execute program source on-the-fly
> >
> > 3. weak typed (or even untyped) variables
> >
> > Some people say that Logo is "friendly Lisp" (and if this is reversable,
> > then Lisp appears to be "unfriendly Logo") ;-)
> >
> > Pavel
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > LogoForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > LogoForum messages are archived at:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> "Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge 
> which comprehends mankind, but mankind cannot comprehend."
> Ludwig van Beethoven
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> LogoForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> LogoForum messages are archived at:
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.

"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge 
which comprehends mankind, but mankind cannot comprehend."
Ludwig van Beethoven



> X-eGroups-Return:
> sentto-2155427-7170-1031677750-earlyfire=earthlink.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Sender: earlyfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Apparently-To: LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Sender: earlyfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
> To: LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: Harvey Bornfield <earlyfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Mailing-List: list LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; contact
> LogoForum-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Delivered-To: mailing list LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> List-Unsubscribe:
> <mailto:LogoForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:08:05 -0700
> Subject: Re: [LogoForum] Digest Number 745
> Reply-To: LogoForum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> A top-line rather than bottom line rendition of the essence of Logo.
> (After all, If one requires ground-rules, one must also allow
> 'sky-rules')
>
> The Logo programming language, as conceived by Papert was created
> initially as an technology environment which focuses and echos, inspires
> and intends above all else to manifest, to clothe a constructionist
> educational philosophy. When I think, better, when I imagine what
> constructionism is all about as an attitude and world-view I see it as a
> technological tool whose role in educational infrastructures is to kindle
> and strengthen a "way of life" we might loosely define as being
> both a servant and mentor of discovery and pioneering paradigms. A
> discussion of its specific powers seem to us somewhat less important than
> clarifying its intent in child-friendly enterprise.
>
> Following through on this train of thought, the very reason for existence
> of this language is not so much to achieve the product-oriented
> objectives of other programming languages, but in place of end-product,
> to encourage entry into process, to explore how dreaming and doing
> coalesce in what is called authoring, with its richness of ongoing
> dialogue between brainstorming and revision. Put another way, Logo, which
> "lives in the place" where the invention, the molecular
> disassembly and the reinvention of the wheel can thrive, is more about
> the practice side of 'practice makes perfect", and seeks to provide
> a theater in which teachers can elongate the time-interval between when
> an idea arises as a 'brushstroke' of creativity, and when it reaches
> glove of final outer architecture. So it is, that In observing what Logo
> implicitly facilitates, we see strong evidence that the terse,
> assembly-line, experimentation-intolerant Nike slash American "Just
> Do It" mandate is softened, is expanded, telescopes out into
> malleable, forgiving, "easy-to-revise, easy-to-tweak" theater
> of activity.
>
> In a very real sense, this sets Logo apart from other languages. For we
> can fairly say that what coerces achievement and fills gradebooks serves
> the notion of teaching, of managerially-directed intent, whereas what
> serves the imagination involved in exploratory process represents,
> inspires and honors learning. This distinction is one of Papert's fulcrum
> ideas to justify how Logo  exists, (thank God), to robustly sabotage
> formularistic, top-down firing-squad pedagogy, (the educational
> "Axis of Evil" ) by free and genuine acts of
> authoring.
>
> Now it is also possible to define what links the myriad variations across
> the vary wide spectrum of the numerous implementations of Logo together
> in ways which enjoy a far greater specificity of definition than what we
> have proposed is the orientation of the language, but we have yet to be
> convinced that the subtle difference in the powers of the language, the
> vocabulary of circles of overlapping and disjunct sets of commands and
> reporters, the object-oriented extensions in the programming environment,
> are anything but a distant understudy and second fiddle to regarding
> philosophy of the language as fundamental to its purpose.
>
> Where Logo has most happily benefitted most from in daring recent
> implementations has been in large measure achieved by
> importing/incorporating powerful ideas fundamental to the 
> 1. paradigms of message passing (in Microworlds if done?, wait until,
> touching?), 
> 2. homespun object and class-definition capability (turtlesown), 
> 3. simultaneously running parallel processes interrogatable under
> user-control
>
> This friendliness to coalese with such currently expanding trends which
> live in VB, Java, C#, etc, bodes well for its future and prophecies the
> direction of its future maturation, perhaps as a compilable tool which
> can possibility thrive in the hands of the software developer as well as
> the child. (Blurred From the New Testament: "Except as the software
> developer become as an elementary school student.........")
>
> In short, ( since many of us know not what we do, ;-)))  )
> Logo is to pencil as other programming languages are to indelible
> ink.
>
> Harvey
>
>
>  
>
> At 11:59 AM 9/10/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
> > Gary McCallister wrote:
> >
> > >Yes!  Actually this goes a long way towards defining Logo for
> > me.
> > >
> > Although there is a Logo community, I'm pretty sure that Logo means 
> > something unique and distinct to each member.
> >
> > I'd also add that some of the most admired feature in Logo (admired at
> > least by me):
> >
> > 1. the ability to dynamically create variables/routines and to access
> > them indirectly
> >
> > 2. the ability to create and execute program source on-the-fly
> >
> > 3. weak typed (or even untyped) variables
> >
> > Some people say that Logo is "friendly Lisp" (and if this is
> > reversable, 
> > then Lisp appears to be "unfriendly Logo") ;-)
> >
> > Pavel
> >
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > LogoForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > LogoForum messages are archived at: 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
> >
> >  
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
> "Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the
> higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind, but mankind cannot
> comprehend." 
> Ludwig van Beethoven 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> LogoForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> LogoForum messages are archived at: 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

"Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind, but mankind cannot comprehend."
Ludwig van Beethoven