in 1997, Professor Brian Harvey of UC Berkeley published a three-volume set of books that approached teaching computer science via the language.

That three-volume set is out of print and costs almost a hundred bucks if you can find a paperback copy.

Professor Harvey, however, has supplied copies of all three volumes on his website for personal use, which has been lovingly archived by the Internet Archive.

Volume 1 starts here:

why logo? (long, quote) 

from the preface:

Logo has been the victim of its own success in the elementary schools. It has acquired a reputation as a trivial language for babies. Why, then, do I use it as the basis for a series of books about serious computer science? Why not Pascal or C++ instead?

The truth is that Logo is one of the most powerful programming language available for home computers. (In 1984 I said "by far the most powerful," but now home computers have become larger and Logo finally has some competition.) It is a dialect of Lisp, the language used in the most advanced research projects in computer science, and especially in artificial intelligence. Until recently, all of the books about Logo have been pretty trivial, and they tend to underscore the point by strewing cute pictures of turtles around. But the cute pictures aren't the whole picture.

Show thread

re: why logo? (long, quote) 

@djsundog Hmm. I wonder if anyone has a Logo interpreter for the Lego RCX?

No. I will not get my Legos out of storage. I will not. I will not. (Where would I put them?)

why logo? (long, quote) 

@djsundog Seymour Papert &c's long paper Mindstorms was where icve most recently got some good Logo shilling. he compares to basic. it was a fun read for me. Bret Victor seems to be hosting a download,

one of the things that really clicks about Logo to me is that the turtle is an embodied agent. other whole environment starts with a xreal" thing on the screen & to program is to consider yourself from the things perspective & to engage & act upon the world about the turtle-self. trying to think of machines & programs as embodied agents, as actors, is a huge leap over how imperative language leaves us thinking foremost about algorithms & number crunching, abstract forms of computing. the real meat of computing happens on a higher plane & getting the operator in touch with, thinking on a much more material plane of different agents, & what options they have, & how they can interact... that's the real, that's material, that's what systems should strive to surface.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!