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

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

opendocs.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

#51

Post by FiberBundle »

CalChris wrote: post #36
formalsystem wrote: post #15

Anyone else feel like this book is really overrated? I've enjoyed the classical mechanics book by the same authors a lot more since it goes over a particularly good application where functional ideas shine

Yes. 61A at Berkeley was nominally based on SICP. Berkeley has since abandoned the book and the class is now taught in Python. MIT 6.01 has abandoned the book as well and recreated the course using Python as well. Scheme was wonderfully elegant but then we never used it again which was annoying. If the choice is between Scheme knowing I'd never use it again and Python then I'd take Python. We never had any readings f…

The programming language itself is irrelevant. After you have learned the concepts sicp introduces you can learn any language much faster.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

#52

Post by blendo »

watersb wrote: post #43

My favorite class in college, also the very first class in our Computer Science curriculum. I still use it.

When I took it at Boston University in 1987, it was my last class for the BS/CS. And one of the toughest because I had so much imperative/side-effect ridden code to unlearn.

Does the MIT Python replacement go "functional first"?

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

#53

Post by catalogia »

dorfsmay wrote: post #45
methehack wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally respect and even admire dissenting opinions, but, on the contrary, this book is magic for me. For me, it connects programming to larger and vital human endeavor. K&R does that for me too, so maybe it's a me thing.

That's an interesting comparison. K&R did nothing for me, I honestly did not understand C until I read Harbison & Steele.

K&R blew my mind when I was a teenager, but years flipping through it again it does nothing for me. I think the experience somebody will have with K&R depends greatly on their previous experiences.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

#55

Post by bitwize »

formalsystem wrote: post #15

Anyone else feel like this book is really overrated? I've enjoyed the classical mechanics book by the same authors a lot more since it goes over a particularly good application where functional ideas shine

SICP is not about FP, it's about all forms of programming. It starts with FP because that's the easiest model to reason about. Then it shows you how if you add state to FP, that can get you to OO. Then it shows you how you can use that to build an evaluator for your favorite programming language, or a virtual machine that can serve as a target for many languages. As a deep dive into a single topic it's not very good, but as an overview of much of computer science it's unparallelled. Knuth appears to have gone for the deep dive approach, and good on him -- but that's why TAOCP is yet unfinished.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

#56

Post by inimino »

CalChris wrote: post #36
formalsystem wrote: post #15

Anyone else feel like this book is really overrated? I've enjoyed the classical mechanics book by the same authors a lot more since it goes over a particularly good application where functional ideas shine

Yes. 61A at Berkeley was nominally based on SICP. Berkeley has since abandoned the book and the class is now taught in Python. MIT 6.01 has abandoned the book as well and recreated the course using Python as well. Scheme was wonderfully elegant but then we never used it again which was annoying. If the choice is between Scheme knowing I'd never use it again and Python then I'd take Python. We never had any readings f…

I feel these moves are part of a general move towards "industry ready" skills and away from fundamentals earlier and earlier in computer science programs (even prestigious ones). Whether that's a good or bad thing is a separate discussion from your opinions on SICP.

What's your personal experience with SICP? It sounds like you were a student in one of these courses ("we never used it again") but you also wrote "We never had any readings from SICP." so I'm not sure what you took and when. Did you work through SICP and still find it overrated?

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

#58

Post by ryeights »

methehack wrote: post #26
pixelmonkey wrote: post #14

I took a one-week SICP course with 5 or 6 other professional programmers last year. It was amazing. I wrote about my personal motivation for doing so here: https://amontalenti.com/2018/08/26/sicp-expanding As for an update: SICP was as good as I expected and definitely makes a professional programmer regain some love for the art and magic of computer science. (However, the book is a hard read without a guide. But it'…

You probably know this, but for others reading along, Racket has a #lang sicp language to fully support using Racket to follow along. https://docs.racket-lang.org/sicp-manual/index.html

Alternatively, install MIT Scheme (*nix/macOS): https://www.gnu.org/software/mit-scheme/

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

#59

Post by golergka »

I first found out about this book from someone reposting on HN a few years ago, and decided to explore it because of discussion in the comments. It significantly influenced me as a developer, and I still point junior developers toward it as one of the main books they should read (and by read, I obviously mean go through excercises) about the craft. Thanks for reposting this again.

Please, do it every couple of months.

Re: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (1996) [pdf]

#60

Post by zabzonk »

methehack wrote: post #28
formalsystem wrote: post #15

Anyone else feel like this book is really overrated? I've enjoyed the classical mechanics book by the same authors a lot more since it goes over a particularly good application where functional ideas shine

I totally respect and even admire dissenting opinions, but, on the contrary, this book is magic for me. For me, it connects programming to larger and vital human endeavor. K&R does that for me too, so maybe it's a me thing.

> it connects programming to larger and vital human endeavor

What endeavour exactly?

Post reply on HN