[Edu-sig] Why is Logo popular, while Python isn't? (was "using Python for a CS 2 course" )

[Arthur]

Beth writes:

>I realize this doesn't help you at all being that my students are 15 years
younger than yours, but I use the deitel book in my >elementary and middle
school python classes and they LOVE it.

Recent posts on python-list indicate that even among people interested
enough in Python to subscribe to that list, there is some considerable
disagreement as to whether Python is in fact appropriate/optimal as a first
programming language.  I believe, at least for a certain potential audience,
it in fact is.  But would probably not put elementary and middle school
students within that target.

There is also a very long thread on the python-list as to "Why is Python
popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?".

Logo derived from L:isp, with a specific design goal of being used to
introduce children to programming concpets.  And to the extent that there
remains interest in that, Logo seems to remain today by a wide margin the
most widely used tool.

I then wonder what folks who are interested in introducing programming to
children via Python feel that Python brings to the table that Logo lacks.

I do understand that it is reasonable to believe that out-of-the-box Python
is more appropriate for children than out-of-the-box Lisp, for example. Or
any other mainstream programming language, for that matter.  But more
appropriate than out-of-the box Logo?  Would a language related to Python,
but not quite Python - be more optimum?

Art