"Why then should computers in schools be confined to computing the sum of the squares of the first twenty-odd numbers and similar so-called problem solving uses? Why not use them to produce some action? There is no better reason than the intellectual timidity of the computers-in-education community, which seems remarkably reluctant to use the computers for any purpose that fails to look very much like something that has been taught in schools for the past centuries." (Papert and Solomon. 1972)

More than twenty years later, in the introduction to the second edition of Mindstorms , Papert expresses his concern that "programming had become structured to meet the conditions of work in school, leading many to question whether programming was worth the trouble." Papert also supports my argument that neither the designer use of Logo was to remain static. He describes the development of Logo from "Classic Logo" through LogoWriter and LEGO TC logo to MicroWorlds by stating that "each of these steps lowered the effort of learning to program and raised the interest and complexity of what could be done with a given level of skill." (Papert. 1993) Who could argue with that?

http://gsep.pepperdine.edu/~gstager/classiclogo.html Daniel