Re: comparison between learning variables in traditional way and by MicroWorlds

["Daniel Ajoy" <da.ajoy@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:10:19 -0500, Timothy Klein <kleinvox@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> I'm not entirely convinced that Logo makes things any easier/better
> than the traditional way (is this the math "traditional" way, or
> imperative programming "traditional" way?).

the concept of "variable" in programming and the concept of "variable" in math 
have similarities and differences. I think the concept of a "variable" in 
imperative programming is closer to the concept of "variable" in math.

I did learn the concept of "variable" in programming (BASIC) before learning 
algebra and I do think it helped me personally.

The thing with MW is that there are other variable-like things other than 
variables. There are text boxes, sliders, the color of a turtle...

Very often you can use those, instead of actual variables, to do the job.

The problem with MW is that it mixes both syntaxes: the ":" notation and the 
"set" notation.

> I'm going to have to think about it more.
>
> I often find myself wishing Logo did variables the Lisp or Scheme way.

why?

Do you meaning sharing the same name-space than procedures?

or

Their names being "tokens" instead of words?

or

lexical scope versus dynamic scope?


Daniel