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
taobert@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In LogoForum Pavel Boytchev wrote:
Think of Logo as of a natural language. We all know (of think that we
know) what English language is. But there is no way to frame it in a
restrictive standard, because it evolves and changes... AS WE USE IT.
---------------------------
I was getting at that point precisely. Logo as a (nearly) natural
language. Rebol tried to do it, inspired by Logo (as I see it).
Every natural (let's say human) language must respect a standard in
order to be usefull and efficient as a communication tool. But a
*restrictive* standard could get this language become ancient; in
french we say this language is a "dead language" (une langue morte).
So I like this idea of a *non-restrictive* standard which respects the
foundations of the language while allowing some freedom of expression.
This allows "programing as poetry" and above all the creation of the
tools which make "poetry" possible.
What about a Logo Academy , as the "French Academy" whose main function
is to keep an eye on the development of the language ... and maybe, at
the end of it all, a Logo Dictionnary with definitions and synonyms ?
----------------------------------
--- In Logo, Pavel Boytchev wrote:
Really? So it's a waste of time to make a Logo compiler...
in reply to Brian Harvey:
but what makes Logo Logo is a collection of choices about what kids
willfind natural/easy/inviting.
----------------------------------
I think Logo lost a lot of time while it was regarded as a programing
language for kids, and even a childish language, because most of the
users fell on the friendly turtle and didn't go further.
Now Logo has the right to make up for lost time . So I don't think it's
a waste of time to make a Logo compiler. On the contrary this is in line
with what has been said above about the evolution of Logo, by means of
a *non-restrictive* standardization.
Regards,
Bertrand
__._,_.___
LogoForum messages are archived at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
> 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]
>
>
> Peter Tomcsanyi wrote:
> >> Can we standardize logo without it losing its soul?
> >
> > And my answer is "NO".
>
> I hate to repeat myself, but I think it might be helpful to remind you
> that there are two types of standard. I do not know the official
> terminology, but the more widespread type is the *restrictive* standard.
> It enforces a fixed description and everything outside it is considered
> wrong. Actually when thinking about standards most people think about
> exactly this type of standard.
>
> The other standard is *non-restrictive* one -- it
> describes/enumerates/classifies already existing entities, and does not
> enforce that new entities should comply with the already existing ones.
>
> My opinion is that restricted standard is either impossible or
> harmful/lethal for Logo. However, the *non-restrictive* standard would
> put some order by sorting things out. So whenever I say I want a Logo
> standard, I mean the *non-restrictive* standard.
>
> Think of Logo as of a natural language. We all know (of think that we
> know) what English language is. But there is no way to frame it in a
> restrictive standard, because it evolves and changes... AS WE USE IT.
>
> Pavel
>
> __._,_.___
> LogoForum messages are archived at:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LogoForum
>
>
|
