[Coco] CoCo Development

[Andrew]

> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 18:41:12 -0700
> From: Richard Goedeken<Richard at fascinationsoftware.com>
> To:coco at maltedmedia.com
> Subject: Re: [Coco] CoCo Development
> Message-ID:
> 	<66c86bbf-bddf-1af6-88f2-883bd8dd1e7e at fascinationsoftware.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> 
> I use a PC running Linux with a Grafx2 for art, MESS for emulation, lwasm for
> assembling, and Python scripts for a build system.
> 
> I'm not lucky enough to have Super LOGO but I do have the regular Logo
> cartridge. I don't think anyone every made any games written in Logo; it's too
> slow.
> 
> Richard

I recall a listing in the Rainbow for a game of "monopoly" written in 
Logo - had sound effects and some other features (many people think of 
Logo as only for "turtle graphics" - but a good implementation allows 
for so much more).

IIRC - the Logo was for OS-9 (?) - I know there was a version of Logo 
for OS-9 (or at least, I think I recall such a thing?) - I always wanted 
to type that code in, but didn't have the language available, so never 
did...

As a kid, my parents had signed me up for one of Radio Shack's "computer 
camp" things and we all gathered upstairs at one of the stores in our 
small city that was located "downtown", and learned Logo (but I recall 
that it was one of the cartridge versions - but which one, I don't know).

So - between that experience, and others since, I have a small part in 
my heart that loves Logo (though not as much as BASIC). Then again, Logo 
has it's own "specialness" that I've only learned to really appreciate 
after reading Papert's Mindstorms...

So - other than that Monopoly game listing, I don't know of any other 
games ever published that were written in Logo. I'm sure there were a 
few, maybe not for the CoCo (likely for the Apple - and more likely for 
the Terrapin implementation for that platform).

Warning - personal rant ahead...

Logo is one of those languages that became really underrated, I think 
mostly because educators got "stuck" on the graphics part, and never 
really explored the whole language. I also think they didn't really 
understand what Papert was trying to express and push for with the 
language, despite there being a book and other material from Papert (and 
his mentor in Piaget) detailing the underlying concepts.

I have this feeling that educators didn't read and/or comprehend the 
material in that book, and of those that did, few understood the simple 
message that Papert was conveying on how to properly integrate the 
computer into education. And so, to this day, we keep bumbling around 
with integrating it, failing in many ways, while more than a few of us 
yell "computational thinking" and "read Mindstorms", which falls on deaf 
ears, because after all, if it was so great, why didn't it catch on?

I also have a feeling that it didn't catch on because (maybe) those 
educators who did understand it, probably realized that such 
self-directed education might leave them out of the loop, maybe out of a 
job, and maybe the kids might also "learn how to learn" (something not 
explicitly taught in school) and also how to question adults, 
skepticism, and cats lying with dogs and all that. Can't allow society 
to be upset like that, of course. We can't have a rational, yet 
skeptical and educated population who understands computational thinking 
and it's application - the powers that be will not accept that, because 
such a population might start asking some tough questions, and demand 
real answers.

Sigh...too bad we didn't go down that road, we'd probably be in a better 
place today.

-- 
Andrew L. Ayers
Glendale, Arizona
https://www.phoenixgarage.org/
https://github.com/andrew-ayers