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

51–60 of 141 posts

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#51

Post by radiorental »

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

Profane?

1. relating or devoted to that which is not sacred or biblical; secular rather than religious.

2. (of a person or their behavior) not respectful of orthodox religious practice; irreverent.

3. treat (something sacred) with irreverence or disrespect.

That all said, I wouldn't go as far as to say profound. Just insightful commentary distilled from experience.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#52

Post by agumonkey »

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…

Never meant to say python metaclasses were equal to CLOS MOP. But the spirit of programming at the OO metalevel is very much similar to what CLOS is about.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#53

Post by jacobush »

tombert wrote: post #24

SICP has a well deserved spot in the "basically a bible for engineers" category. I remember hearing about from a podcast in 2012 (I can't remember which one, sadly), and immediately fell in love with the free copy from MIT's website. I was pretty excited when I found a physical copy at a thrift store for two dollars. Even though I had already read it, I like having it on my shelf to prominently display. It's not a tr…

5 cents on you heard on Microsofts Channel 9 podcast.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#55

Post by kingbirdy »

> Let's see if we can put this in terms that the undergrads will understand -- a problem set

It would be more accurate to say "in terms that MIT/Stanford/Ivy undergrads will understand", considering most universities just call it "homework". Since that's the background Paul and many of his colleagues come from, it's understandable. However, as a CS undergrad at a more run-of-the-mill university, it's a bit discouraging to see this vocabulary so widespread at the top levels of the industry - it makes it seem almost impossible to break in when everyone else is a part of the "elite" that you're not in.

At the end of the day, I realize this is a totally trivial issue. Just curious if any other folks out there have noticed this.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#56

Post by jwilk »

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?

No, it's clear from the context they meant something negative.

I'd put my bets on "mundane".

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#58

Post by cncrnd »

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

This applies to all prominent people at any time in history.

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#59

Post by ZephyrP »

stevelosh wrote: post #23

If you tried reading SICP in the past but it didn't quite click, you might want to try watching the lectures as you read it: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB63C06FAF154F047

The lectures are good but I think the book is really unparalleled in it's original format. It stresses building the intuitive sense of deep structure, which I think other formats would have difficulty communicating.

I personally thought the biggest barrier was the mundane, so I tried to write up some tips, test cases and helpful utilities for doing SICP ( https://github.com/zv/SICP-guile ).

Re: Paul Graham on SICP (2000)

#60

Post by billsix »

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…

> 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.

How is possible that you read the whole book and didn't learn anything new?

Post reply on HN