Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!agate!ygdrasil.Berkeley.EDU!faustus From: faustus@ygdrasil.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Language Use Keywords: C,Ada,Pascal,C++,Other? Message-ID: <1991Mar17.012524.9090@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 17 Mar 91 01:25:24 GMT References: <1150@ra.MsState.Edu> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator) Reply-To: faustus@ygdrasil.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Wayne A. Christopher) Distribution: comp Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 21 Despite its reputation as a baby language, Logo has a pretty nice conceptual framework -- it's a dialect of Lisp, even though the syntax doesn't make it look that way. From an early training in Logo, it should be possible to progress to Scheme and then to Common Lisp. These languages are strong in the "immediate reward" and "essential programming" categories you mention, and can be augmented with environments that make snazzy programs easy to write. As for "software engineering" and "reliable software", the outcome is debatable. The question is, if all people are exposed to early are Lisp-like languages, will they be able to adapt easily to using Algol-like languages? That is, which of these sequences is better: Logo -> Scheme -> Common Lisp -> C++ -> Ada .... Basic -> Pascal -> C++ -> Common Lisp ... I am assuming that in order to be an effective computer professional, one must be familiar with both Lisp-like and Algol-like languages. Wayne