That is, Re: Kelleher and Pausch's Lowering the Barriers to Programming, ACM Computing Surveys 37(2) Here's a comment off the top, and apart from the more obvious issue for the edu-sig group (namely, Python's near-complete absence): the "taxonomy" is completely ahistorical; they seem to have set up 60+ programming environments next to one another and considered them all at face value, with no particular consideration for the time and context from which each emerged (we're talking a 45-year span here). The two exceptions to this are the repeated reference to a god-given, eternal "logo turtle", and a chart which tracks the "influences" of various systems on one another, but only by simple bibliometrics. I'm working on a comprehensive history of the Smalltalk/Squeak 'tradition' so this facet pops out at me immediately, as there are a half-dozen or more Smalltalk-derived systems listed here, though you'd never know it from the article. My 2 cents. What do you folk think of this? - John Maxwell jmax@sfu.ca