Poll: Have you read SICP? • Hacker News Board

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#51

Post by shawndumas » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 7:47 PM UTC

ecyrb wrote: post #38

arohner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised. I worked through SICP a few years after graduating, and after the dragon book, and it still managed to warp my brain in new and exciting ways.

Congrats on making it through both. I haven't gotten to the dragon yet... For those interested, you can get a red dragon for significantly less than the newer editions (check amazon).

$10.09 ==> http://isbn.nu/0321486811

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#52

Post by imp » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 7:50 PM UTC

For anyone starting to go through SICP, there's a collaborative class on Curious Reef working on it: http://curiousreef.com/class/structure-and-interpretation-of...

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#53

Post by pointyhat » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 7:55 PM UTC

Yes. SICP is a profound work. I'd argue that it is a profound experience too. As is GEB (Godel Escher Bach). They are both a mind altering typeset form of LSD.

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#54

Post by pointyhat » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 7:56 PM UTC

alexk7 wrote: post #25

I suggest you watch the original video lectures by Hal Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman [1]. [1] http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.001/abelson-sussma...

They are great lectures. Better by several orders of magnitude than the ones I sat through at university.

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#55

Post by city41 » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 8:01 PM UTC

When I was in college I was browsing the library and I just grabbed this book on a whim. Had no idea what it was or that it was so famous. Began reading and got hooked, so I checked it out. Next thing I knew I had read the whole book and done most of the exercises. Not to be too dramatic, but it was a turning point in my understanding of programming.

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#56

Post by mlni » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 8:07 PM UTC

b_emery wrote: post #48

For those who have read it, I'd be interested in knowing what it is that you feel you got out of it, ie how did it make you a better programmer? Better understanding of what's going on at a low level?

The "interpretation of computer programs" part is nice to know, in my opinion. But the book gives a whirlwind tour of a sizeable chunk of computer science on the way, and the examples are concise to the point of being beautiful. Great book. Used it to learn clojure along the way.

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#57

Post by jb55 » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 8:11 PM UTC

I'm through about 25% of it, but I decided to do all of the exercises in Haskell rather than Scheme. In a way it improves the experience as a whole, thanks to type errors slowly prodding me in the right direction.

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#58

Post by sanj » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 8:21 PM UTC

Been there, read the book, took the class, missed the first arrow on the CDR diagram on the first exam, TA'd the class, enjoyed the wizard hat. Two thumbs up.

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#59

Post by shaunxcode » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 8:23 PM UTC

I really don't want this to come off as flippant - but: fuck yes. Honestly the most important experience in my computer science "self education". I am still working on SICM. Every year I seem have learned just enough more math/physics to grok another page or two.

Re: Poll: Have you read SICP?

#60

Post by niels_olson » Thu, Aug 04, 2011, 8:38 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #32

niels_olson wrote: post #28

Personally, I'm a physician with an undergrad in physics, played with logo and basic as a kid. I picked up SICP and got to chapter 2 or 3 on my own time last summer but set it down to go learn Python as it was pretty obvious Abelson and Sussman expect you to either be a bachelor's degree candidate with a lot of time to work on this, or you have a substantial background understanding to bring to bear. I tried Ruby but…

Abelson and Sussman expect you to either be a bachelor's degree candidate with a lot of time to work on this I think that's to be expected for a university course textbook.

No doubt, it wasn't intended as a negative. But for the independent student, stating what may seem obvious can be critically necessary. Compared to both O'Reilly titles and plenty of assigned course readings, that wasn't entirely clear to me until I had a few problem sets done. For example, Norvig's review makes it sound like it can be read lightly. Maybe only if your name is Norvig. I don't know.