Path: news.media.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bh From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey) Newsgroups: comp.lang.logo Subject: Re: Evolution of logo Date: 28 Dec 1993 01:53:58 GMT Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 18 Message-ID: <2fo3jm$q5d@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <1993Dec24.194331.91@magill.unisa.edu.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu tim@harlequin.com (Tim McNerney) writes: >This is not to say that teaching recursion is as easy as teaching basic >turtle graphics. In fact you can't get very far even in turtle graphics without using recursion, e.g., polyspi. But that's a recursive command. It's operations (functions), I think, that people find hard to think about. >. Have there been similar studies exploring the benefits of a "Visual" Logo? In effect this is the idea of Boxer. It's not quite exactly Logo, but mostly similar, except that both program structures and data structures are represented as boxes on the screen, which can be nested, etc. Another relevant program is Function Machines, from BBN, which lets you program by constructing pictures that look like the "plumbing diagrams" in my first volume (a box for each function with input hoppers and output chutes, wired up to each other).