I think there are a lot of assumptions embedded in that. Happy to dig into them directly, but I’m curious about your thoughts on an analogy: Are you familiar with SICM? groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/
Conversation
I'm a little familiar with it - I guess I've spent maybe ~10 hours with it.
1
I thought it might be a useful analogy insofar as it represents an approach, notation, and perspective which has seen very little uptake, but I think one would be hard pressed to describe it as without technical merit. It clearly *could* be the kernel of a tradition IMO.
1
It seemed to me like an extremely interesting prototype, and made me wish for a book written by, say, Feynman+Sussman, on the same subject.
2
1
I think that’s a lovely evaluation.
To bring it back to Logo: I suspect (though now I am encouraged to actually go estimate this), that Logo’s development qua DG probably didn’t see as much directed R&D time as that text and framework.
1
Something I tend to forget is that the framing of Logo in terms of DG is one Alan Kay makes, IIRC, much more than Papert. Which is rather unfair to Logo.
3
1
(I've made this mistake before, I'm afraid. Apologies - it does rather mean my argument is against a straw man.)
1
1
But I think still an evocative and important straw man! Even if Papert didn’t erect it, plenty of others have— I’ll never begrudge someone pushing someone “in education” to demonstrate that there’s a there there 😋
1
Thanks. I'm afraid I've got to head to bed. Nice chatting with you, Alec, and thanks for your patience.
1
2
Same! 🙏🏼
1
2
What a wonderful and thoughtful provoking conversation to find in my notifications this morning. I’m grateful to you both!