Re: Suitability of Lua as a First Programming Language?

[Laurent Faillie <l_faillie@...>]

> One of the things that killed LOGO was that most microcomputers of the
day simply weren't up to
> running it.
I can't second that : I started with Sharp Pocket computers (PC-1401
then 1350 and I still have/use them) with had a VERY powerful basic.
The hardware was very limited : 572 khz CPU having very reduced
instruction set and only 4k of user memory.
And we did magics with that ... And even more when directly POKING
assembly code.

The problem now days is with our powerful CPUs, almost unlimited
memories and brain damaged OSes, programmers forgot what optimization means.
I mean, is it normal that an "OS" like ms-windows took more than 1Go
only to run and needs 2Ghz multicore CPU to run ? I don't think so : my
old Amiga 1000 did better in 1985 with only a 8mhz 68k and 256 Mo.

And yes, I ran at school full featured Logo on 6809 / 32k boxes w/o
limitations or problems.

IMO, BASIC won because it was more versatile still being very easy to learn.