I am saying that LOGO is old. It was written the same year that BCPL (the predecessor for C) was written. To say that LOGO is a member of {language family}, it should be restricted to languages that were in use at that time.
LOGO is a member of the LISP language family. From there, it also went on to influence many other influential languages.
"Family" perhaps, but calling it a LISP is going too far when it doesn't have true macros (indeed most implementations have no macros at all). And to my mind the close similarity with TCL as a language is a lot more interesting than the details history, even- especially - if it's a point in the design space which both languages discovered independently rather than a case of one influencing the other.
I am saying that LOGO is old. It was written the same year that BCPL (the predecessor for C) was written. To say that LOGO is a member of {language family}, it should be restricted to languages that were in use at that time.
LOGO is a member of the LISP language family. From there, it also went on to influence many other influential languages.