The message below is being cross-posted from the LogoForum. Please
reply here at comp.lang.logo and it will be cross-posted back to the
LogoForum. The original author of this message is
pavel@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> LIOGO is a "Logo compiler" to get executable Logo procedures, right?
Right.
> WHY TO MAKE A LOGO COMPILER
> WITH SOMETHING NOT INCLUDED IN THE STANDARD WINDOWS VERSION?
Because many others have .Net installed. I also have it, because I need
it to tun some project-related stuff.
..Net has some features which make some things a lot easier.
> My question is because there is a lot of directly "executable"
> software within the "standard" basic version of Windows, so... Why
> not to make a Logo compiler to get that "directly executable"
> characteristic without any "extra" requirement?
Try Lhogho. No graphics yet, but all number/word/list-related primitives
are there.
> Why not to try to make certain things more easily?
Lhogho compiles directly to machine code, although this is, IMO, the
hardest way of implementing a Logo.
__._,_.___
LogoForum messages are archived at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
