LOGO没有国际标准

LOGO本身是一种LISP方言（被称作“没有括号的LISP”），按理说是一种函数式程序设计语言。只是用LOGO的几年，脑子里却只有（而且也只把LOGO当成是）命令式程序设计语言。这不能不说是一种悲哀。

刚刚看了一个贴子，某人想实现个LOGO，问LOGO的标准。结果回答是很出乎意料的，LOGO大会曾经讨论过这个问题，但却因为各种LOGO实现之间的差别太大而没有一个统一的标准。LOGO的语法本来就十分简单，但是在这种简单当中，各种LOGO的实现的语法是相当不同的。就连著名的“龟图”也不是所有的LOGO实现都有的。最后一句话，所有LOGO共有的东西只有：
1. 数据结构：字和表。
2. 操作他们的FIRST, LAST, BUTFIRST等东西

贴子来自 comp.lang.logo：

"David Waller" <David.Wall...@nospam.Blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
>Does anybody know of a good language definition available for logo.

[FAQ, written 2001.10.8]

At one of the Logo conferences several years ago I ran a session in
which the possibility of a standard was discussed.  Many of the Logo
implementors were there, as well as many users.  We ended up with
the conclusion that no standard was possible, because there were too
many serious disagreements about syntax, and also because the set of
primitive procedures was constantly in flux.

The main syntactic disagreement was about special forms.  In LCSI Logo
and products derived from it, TO is the only exception to the rule that
inputs are evaluated before a procedure is invoked.  For example, to
edit a procedure named FOO you must say
        EDIT "FOO
so that the word FOO, the procedure's name, is the value of the input
to EDIT.  By contrast, in MIT-derived dialects (such as Terrapin), several
primitive procedures are treated as exceptions, so you must say
        EDIT FOO
to edit the procedure named FOO.

The advantage of the latter (special form) syntax is that it's more
obvious to a beginner, especially a young one.

The advantage of the former (evaluated) syntax is that it's a more
general mechanism.  For example, suppose I have a bunch of procedures
that I want to consider as a unit.  I can say
        TO MYPROCS
        OUTPUT [PROC1 PROC2 PROC3]
        END
and then use the instruction
        EDIT MYPROCS
to edit those three procedures.  In Terrapin syntax it would instead
edit the procedure MYPROCS itself, which isn't what I want this time.
Also, in the long run (some of us think) it's easier to understand;
in MIT-derived dialects you still have to say
        MAKE "VAR value
to assign a value to the variable VAR, so you have to explain to
students why you need quotes in that case but not for EDIT!

(Current Terrapin Logo accepts
        EDIT (MYPROCS)
to mean that MYPROCS should be invoked to produce a list of procedures
to edit.  This gives Terrapin the power of the LCSI notation, at the
cost of adding another special meaning, this time for parentheses, but
it's not documented in their manual.)

Some really recent versions have even more different notations, moving
away from the whole idea of variables, so instead of using MAKE to set
the value and using :VAR to retrieve it, you have procedures SETVAR
and VAR for those purposes, and there are no variables at all.

As for the semantics, what are the essential features of Logo?  There
have been versions without turtle graphics, such as the "Music Logo"
that Terrapin sold for the Apple II in which graphics primitives were
replaced with sound generation primitives.  At MIT there is a project
in which a small computer is mounted in a Lego brick; it has a different
primitive set from the typical keyboard-and-screen computer.  At the
meeting all we agreed on was that anything called Logo should have
the word and list processing primitives (FIRST, BUTFIRST, LAST, BUTLAST,
WORD, SENTENCE, etc.).

[Posted and mailed.]