English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

LOGO has been evolving in incremental steps for 40 years. This has resulted in steady progress but some regions of the space of all programming languages for children cannot be reached without passing through unacceptable intermediate designs. What are the ultimate aims of LOGO? What criteria and aesthetics should be used in determining which areas of the design space are most promising? What would the ideal programming language look like? Would a family of special-purpose languages be more effective than a single language?  In looking to the future what can we learn from the history of LOGO? What can we learn from other programming systems for children? Alan Kay is leading a new project entitled, "Steps toward the Reinvention of Programming". What are its strengths and weaknesses?  We can conceptualise the design alternatives as defining an n-dimensional space. Some dimensions represent major alternatives for syntax, others for dealing with concurrency, others for the underlying computational models, and others for features of the programming environment.  The goal of this paper is to spur a discussion of these issues. I will present my personal opinions based upon 30 years of research experience in this field.

Should LOGO Keep Going FORWARD 1?