Logo for MS-DOS ("rich logos") 
Author Message
 Logo for MS-DOS ("rich logos")

Quote:
> 2/ mswlogo - windows Logo. This is very good indeed - my kids are Windows
> hackers already so they had no problems with it. It is not as rich a language
> as the UCB logo above but is great for kids (thats what LOGO is for isnt it).

As far as I could tell, this refers to MSW24, and I would second it.  The newer
version, packaged as MSWLGO3x.zip, is richer.  I'm no expert, but my non-
exhaustive tests suggest it has the richness of UCB logo (it was described
as having the latter's "core").  I can attest that APPLY is there, as a
primitive I believe, and so are various functions employing it.  Also, one
can BURY things, and save or load a workspace.  

Brian's UCB Logo(s) I find wonderful, and the MSW3 struck me as also
wonderful.  I feel lucky to have both!   - tracy        



Sat, 10 Jun 1995 02:37:20 GMT  
 Logo for MS-DOS ("rich logos")

Quote:
> 2/ mswlogo - windows Logo. This is very good indeed - my kids are Windows
> hackers already so they had no problems with it. It is not as rich a language
> as the UCB logo above but is great for kids (thats what LOGO is for isnt it).

Too bad you put this comment SO far down in your "review" :-).

And your right on the mark, it's the windows user interface that I hope
will attract and hold onto them, longer than the TTY style.
MswLogo should (and hopefully will) be able to allow the Logo programmer
to write windows applications (dialog boxes, buttons, etc.).
It probably will be limited because I don't plan to write a resource
compiler, but the student can at least learn a windows programming model.

For begginers there is not that much difference between 3.X and 2.4
MswLogo. There are things already in 3.X that are even better than 2.4 for
the beginner. Like a post script document, more consistent command names,
etc. The reason I tell folks to wait for a newer version is that it's
not Kid-proof. You can make it hang or crash windows by doing odd things
(which kids do). Also docs are a little hard to understand for new
programmers. Other than that it's just a tad more complex and a lot richer.

Once Msw Logo 3.X is cleaned up the simplicity of 2.4
should not be an issue. If it is, it will get fixed, one way or another.



Sat, 10 Jun 1995 06:30:06 GMT  
 Logo for MS-DOS ("rich logos")
My comment about mswlogo being not as rich as UCB logo was made about 2 days
before the mswlgo3x announcement. Mswlogo now has the same core (give or take a
bit I guess - see the current GOTO thread) as the excellent UCB logo.

With regards to mswlogo using more of WIndows features. I think the ability
to call a DLL routine would br very useful. This would mean that I could
add all kinds of stuff to the language.

PAul,



Sat, 10 Jun 1995 18:04:11 GMT  
 
 [ 3 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. LOGO-L> MS-DOS version of Logo

2. it's "Logo" not "LOGO"

3. Looking for MS-DOS "sed"

4. MS-DOS 6.2 "FCB unavailable"

5. Logo "standard"?

6. Logo "standard"?

7. Logo "standard"?

8. Looking for a "Best Buy" Logo

9. "One-Touch-Logo"

10. "Reseau Logo" home page

11. New "Logo-like" Scheme-based text

12. LOGO-L> copydef "fin "end

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software