Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#31

Post by [deleted] »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #18
aidos wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you need to have a solid foundation in lisp to understand it or is it approachable for experienced software developers in other domains?

Not at all. It was written as an introductory text for freshman computer science students with no prior exposure to programming (much less a Lisp or Lisp-like language). Just keep in mind that the students in question were at MIT. :-) The book gets very deep (note some of the things that Paul Graham says in his review, and note who is saying those things). Be prepared to expend a lot of challenging brainwork to get t…

[deleted]

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#32

Post by armitron »

agumonkey wrote: post #22
Gorgor wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Python’s object system? How so?

Access to metaclasses. Whenever I watch a python metaclass talk I can't help but thinking 'welcome to CLOS guys'

CLOS is metacircular, implemented in itself. Moreover, it decouples state (classes and instances) from protocol (generic functions and methods) and through the MOP allows you to reprogram every aspect of its behavior.

Python's object system suffers from the same ailments that Python itself does. It's an amalgamation of various hacks, some obviously inspired by Common Lisp [1], others made up on the spot in order to make everything "fit" together.

In order to best see this, browse CPython's source and find how metaclasses are implemented. Then imagine what you would have to do if you wanted to radically change Python's object system. Contrast with the Common Lisp MOP.

[1] Here is Guido talking about Python's metaobject protocol. Taking into account everything it lacks and how it's implemented, it's not really a metaobject protocol in the CLOS sense, but it's enlightening to read GvR's description of his "aha!" moments in the slides -- which he came upon when he read "The Art of the Metaobject Protocol" -- and then realize that he simply picked very few of the ideas from it whilst completely missing the essence:

http://laser.inf.ethz.ch/2012/slides/vanRossum/laser-mop.pdf

So yes, Python has metaclasses but metaclasses are only ~5% of what makes CLOS (and AMOP) iconoclastic. For the rest, read "The Art of the Metaobject Protocol" [2]. This should convince you that Python is really nothing like Lisp and the philosophy of metaprogramming that Lisp espouses is dumbed down and made pretty much powerless (in a similar way, interactive programming) in Python.

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_the_Metaobject_Prot...

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#33

Post by barbegal »

I can't understand why "694 people found this helpful". It's not a very good review or even a review at all. The only review-like part of it is "I still don't feel I have learned everything the book has to teach." which is very cryptic. Why doesn't Paul Graham feel like he has learned everything from the book? Is it because the book has a huge amount to teach and it isn't possible to consume it all in a short period of time or is it because the lessons are poorly taught and therefore require careful re-reading or is it because the book can be read at many different levels?

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#36

Post by ska »

pixelmonkey wrote: post #30
bogomipz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"And, obviously, you've never taken a Beazley course before. " Could you elaborate on this point? I am not familiar with this individual or their classes. Is there something special?

You can see some of David Beazley's presentations on YouTube. He presents regularly at PyCon and other conferences. He's also the author of Python Essential Reference and the editor of Python Cookbook, 3rd Edition. One of my favorite presentations of his that gives a flavor of his instruction style is "Python Concurrency from the Ground Up" at PyCon 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCs5OvhV9S4 I saw this one liv…

   "So, in 5 days, you learned all about compiler theory, ..."
You did not. Not to detract from the course - I have no opinion on that and you seem to have got a lot out of it and sounds like fun. But in 5 days no instructor or course is going to give you anything more than a fairly superficial understanding of something like compiler theory.

It sounds a lot like a typical module from one of the more rigorous introductory undergraduate courses on compilers, that's good stuff!

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#37

Post by clevershot »

barbegal wrote: post #33

I can't understand why "694 people found this helpful". It's not a very good review or even a review at all. The only review-like part of it is "I still don't feel I have learned everything the book has to teach." which is very cryptic. Why doesn't Paul Graham feel like he has learned everything from the book? Is it because the book has a huge amount to teach and it isn't possible to consume it all in a short period…

I have the feeling anything PG says these days is applauded w/o proper reflection. Maybe it’s just me, but I have the feeling most of his thoughts are quite profane

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#38

Post by mehrdadn »

clevershot wrote: post #37
barbegal wrote: post #33

I can't understand why "694 people found this helpful". It's not a very good review or even a review at all. The only review-like part of it is "I still don't feel I have learned everything the book has to teach." which is very cryptic. Why doesn't Paul Graham feel like he has learned everything from the book? Is it because the book has a huge amount to teach and it isn't possible to consume it all in a short period…

I have the feeling anything PG says these days is applauded w/o proper reflection. Maybe it’s just me, but I have the feeling most of his thoughts are quite profane

I haven't read anything close to 50% of his thoughts to know if most of them are quite profane, but the few other pieces I've read have indeed seemed quite insightful.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#39

Post by zabzonk »

clevershot wrote: post #37
barbegal wrote: post #33

I can't understand why "694 people found this helpful". It's not a very good review or even a review at all. The only review-like part of it is "I still don't feel I have learned everything the book has to teach." which is very cryptic. Why doesn't Paul Graham feel like he has learned everything from the book? Is it because the book has a huge amount to teach and it isn't possible to consume it all in a short period…

I have the feeling anything PG says these days is applauded w/o proper reflection. Maybe it’s just me, but I have the feeling most of his thoughts are quite profane

"profound", not "profane, surely?

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#40

Post by gxs »

forapurpose wrote: post #16
enitihas wrote: post #7

And there should be a Peter Norvig review too for SICP, just in the vicinity of PG's. Link: https://www.amazon.com/review/R403HR4VL71K8/ref=cm_cr_rdp_pe...

Note that Norvig's and Graham's reviews are 12 days apart in the year 2000. Also, (2000) should be added to the title.

I've always found this especially amusing - there are so many different ways you can interpret this.
Post reply on HN