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

[Kirby Urner]

At 09:03 AM 11/22/2002 -0500, Arthur wrote:

>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'm a bit skeptical of this "professional vs. pseudo" dichotomy.  A
graphical programming environment such as provided by Lego Mindstorms
isn't pseudo in that it actually works to control the movements of
an RCX.  Logo actually works too.  Pseudo suggests pseudo-code, i.e.
code written to look like something that might really execute, but
really doesn't (usually because it's too simple).

What's a more useful distinction, I think, is "general purpose" versus
"special purpose" languages and APIs (to some extent, an API is a
language).  This distinction cross-cuts the "professional versus toy"
categorization, in that a language used by professionals may well be
very specialized.  Much of the coding that goes on in this world is
*not* directed to some horizontal consumer market.  A lot of pro
coding is completely for inhouse consumption, internal to an
organization, and all kinds of languages get used.

Being a student is a specialized activity, and it's a "profession"
for those engaged in it quasi full time, or at least engaged in it
deeply.  So in school, we maybe learn languages that are specialized
to some educational goal.  But I don't think these are necessarily
toy or pseudo languages.  For example, a lot of math teachers are
deeply invested in TI culture (Texas Instruments), and there's a kind
of programming language that goes with those.  It's specialized, but
not a merely a toy language -- many professionals use it.

In any case, I think we're all in agreement that Python is a good
general purpose language that students could benefit from learning,
and early exposure is not necessarily a bad idea.  However, I see
no real point to disparaging Logo as a "toy language" if the thrust
that label is to try pushing Logo out of the early grades market.
Kids *should* play with toys -- the specialized professional tools
for their age group.

Kirby