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

[Arthur]

Terry writes -

>I think you underestimate the age at which people begin writing useful
>software. I've met an awful lot of programmers online who turned out to be
>teenagers.  They had to have *already* learned to program by that time.

I can't disagree, having followed developments in the realm of graphics for
some time.  Certainly much of the most interesting work in that realm has
been done by young folks.  VPython, just as an example, was written by David
Scherer (who was at one point active on this list) when he was a college
sophomore, I believe. And already an accomplished and experienced
programmer.

So we seem not to be disagreeing much on specific points, just a little as
to the relevance of those points to the issue.  But I also agree that, all
things being equal (or close enough), exposure to a professional programming
language is preferable  to a pseudo language, at even a young age.  But more
than anything that's the question I am raising. Is all things being equal,
or close enough, a realistic possiblity??

I would guess the Logo and Boxer folk might distinguish between a
professional prgramming language and a language designed for personal use,
and would argue that their languages are good for a lifetime, for personal
needs.  If one is going "pro" certainly one goes further.  But with the Logo
and Boxer experience put to good use, even in that case.

>PC
>The University of California has prohibited our providing information about
PC
>Boxer. Seek other sources of information.

Followed that thread myself and came to a dead-end.  It looks like there may
have been a commercial spin-off, which had made the software available at
one point, but then went to a purely on-line curriculum.  Anyway, could not
find a Windows version to look at - anywhere.

>I think the point is that it may be worthwhile to teach a somewhat harder
>language so that the continuity is kept. I would consider Boxer to be
>*fundamentally* different (being a graphical language, and therefore not a
>"language" at all from a certain perspective, but an "authoring
>environment"). Logo, on the other hand, is just another language -- not
>*that* much easier to learn than Python, and generally less capable.

Yes. But if Python gets there it seems to me it will be from the top down.
In other words I believe Python's "wheelhouse" in terms of education is at
the college and late high school stages.  If it becomes pervasive enough
there, the advantages of using it for younger grades might then, and - I
would argue - only then, become a true factor.

>What *I* think you need, is to learn lots of different *programming
styles*:
>procedural, functional, object-oriented, connectionist, and so on.

Interesting that for someone like myself for whom Python is my first, and
really only language, these distinctions are somewhat lost on me.  I have,
and continue to develop, a sense of what is possible and how things are best
approached in Python. What style that leads me to in a particular case is
not something of which I am very aware.  To the extent that Python *is* the
future, maybe those distinctions are becoming less meaningful.  And other
than needing to compromise on speed issues (I am doing 3d graphics) I have
yet to come across anythng I wanted to accomplish that I couldn't  get done
in Python in a way that ended up seeming succinct and elegant.  Though I am
not doing anything tremendously sophisticated, of course.

On the other hand, now that Boost2 is out, I am intent on learning enough
C++ to allow me to use it in conjunction with Python (and Boost) to be in a
position to eliminate any performance bottlenecks that I encounter that are
in fact more than an issue of inefifient Python coding.

Given that I will be fully configured to conquer the world, it seems to me.

Art