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

41–50 of 141 posts

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#41

Post by andrewflnr »

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…

It's funny, so people want to upvote it. There's only one upvote button for an Amazon review.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#42

Post by elmar »

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

For me Paul Graham is a very rare breed of people that manages the delicated symbiosis between academic Vs entrepreneur - theory Vs real life - gut feeling Vs mathematical analysis.

Is overwhelming contribution to the Startup culture will only be well understood by future historical analysts.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#43

Post by dreamcompiler »

armitron wrote: post #32
agumonkey wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

CLOS (as well as a lot of other things in Common Lisp, like the error system) depends on CLOS being present. This is why writing a competent CLOS compiler that can bootstrap itself is very difficult. But it's so worth it.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#44

Post by dreamcompiler »

bogomipz wrote: post #28
agumonkey wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i you squint you'll see CLOS

What is CLOS? Is this an acronym? Google is failing me here.

CLOS is--IMHO--the most advanced object system ever invented. The freedom that comes from CLOS is mind-blowing. Learning what CLOS can do will make you hate every other object-oriented programming system.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#45

Post by stan_rogers »

bdcs wrote: post #34
mcguire wrote: post #3

"al" is the brother of e.e. cummins. He's incredibly prolific.

Hmm, I'm out of the loop. Is pg referring to et. al.? As in `and others` (et alia/alii/aliae)?

Yes. Exactly that. In a short (bibliography or card catalogue) listing, SICP would have been by Abelson et al.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#46

Post by nine_k »

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…

It's not a review per se, but 4 of the 6 questions are pretty good. Trying to answer them helps think important thoughts.

I suppose a few other proper reviews exist on the book's page, so adding another like these might be not so important.

(Also, Amazon in 2000 was quite a different thing than Amazon in 2018. It was much smaller, and much less important.)

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#47

Post by antt »

armitron wrote: post #14
dreamcompiler wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studying SICP in Python is kind of like reading the Odyssey via Google Translate. You'll get the gist of it, but you won't feel the earth move. Python is a "Lisp lite" and the parts of Lisp that Python leaves out or cripples are incredibly important.

Mostly agree but: Lua is a Lisp-lite, Ruby maybe a Lisp-lite, Python? No way, I'd go as far as say that Python is antithetical to the Lisp philosophy and yes, I know Norvig has claimed something similar in the past. It's still inaccurate and wrong. In an interview, Norvig pretty much admitted that popular appeal is more important to him than the inherent superiority [which he of course acknowledges] of the philosophy…

You can write lisp-y python quite easily. It's not good, pythonic or maintainable, but for learning purposes it is acceptable, especially on the 2.x series. Just start with list comprehensions.

Lua and Ruby I fail to see how they are in any way lisp-y.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#49

Post by 3rdAccount »

zabzonk wrote: post #39
clevershot wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yea, I've read several of his essays (certainly not close to all of them) and didn't find any profane.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#50

Post by nickjj »

taylodl wrote: post #2

I first read SICP after 25 years of professional development, and while I didn't learn anything new I did see things in a whole new light. I think it would have been really useful to have read the book 25 years ago: I think you're going to benefit from having a few years of real-world development experience before reading this book. The profundity, impact and applicability to your work will be much greater. Highly re…

This is exactly what I did too, but after 12ish years of experience.

I watched the original lectures on Youtube while working through the book. Really enlightening experience.

I was hooked by the cover art of the book and after a few minutes of watching the lecture where he explained a procedure as a pattern of rules and compared them to spells. That's a really profound way of not only thinking, but teaching too because you have to remember those people in the class are new to computer programming. That's such a good analogy on so many levels.

Post reply on HN