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

Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

wisdomandwonder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 140 posts

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#11

Post by alecco »

scott_s wrote: post #8
gojomo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pulling a meaningful, discretely discussable quote from another place isn't necessarily 'blog spam'. Sussman's rationale for the change in 6.001's focus and language is more interesting to me than anything else in the 'international lisp conference -- day 2' post, and is hidden near the bottom of that post. So, the pull quote blog item adds finding/filtering value for me, which is the opposite of spam. Neither the bl…

Thanks - I was going to point out the same thing. The linked blog has no ads, so I don't think he's going to gain much from hits.

Tomato, potato.

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#12

Post by maggie »

jules wrote: post #10
trjordan wrote: post #3

I think there's something else here, implicit in Sussman's comment, that's important. MIT was founded on a philosophy of practicality, and everything else is secondary. If you couple that with the belief that fundamental computer science is the most efficient way to enhance practical software engineering, Scheme was a wonderful choice. Java and C++ may have been more directly practical to software engineers, but they…

> If you can convey 95% of the basic ideas in Python But you cannot. Some of the ideas in SICP can nearly be conveyed in Python (like lexical scoping, closures, data types, streams). You'll use built-in language features in Python (classes, generators) instead of implementing the functionality. I think that implementing these things is important if you want to really understand them. An example, cons, car and cdr fro…

You need to remember that 6.001 is an /introductory/ programming course. Presumably most of the people taking it at MIT have done some codework before : ] but an intro. course is an intro. course. The question of what language to use is a pedagogical one, not a question of thoroughness.

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#13

Post by rjprins »

time_management wrote: post #9

I wonder, if the switch had been made now, it they would have switched to Clojure instead of Python. It's a lot closer to Scheme, and its connection to the JVM gives it a lot of practical power. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Clojure is still something of a small hype. Python is a 18 year-old programming language.

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#14

Post by stcredzero »

trjordan wrote: post #3

I think there's something else here, implicit in Sussman's comment, that's important. MIT was founded on a philosophy of practicality, and everything else is secondary. If you couple that with the belief that fundamental computer science is the most efficient way to enhance practical software engineering, Scheme was a wonderful choice. Java and C++ may have been more directly practical to software engineers, but they…

My concern is that "practicality" is often just a code word for "resembles Java or whatever else I was comfortable with so I can continue on doing what I've always done before." (With the result that the student learns less than if they were required to do something truly different.)

Reminds me of this post that came up on HN not too long ago:

http://funcall.blogspot.com/2009/03/not-lisp-again.html

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#15

Post by mjtokelly »

"And why Python, then? Well, said Sussman, it probably just had a library already implemented for the robotics interface, that was all."

I can confirm this is true. The Python Robotics module (Pyro) inspired MIT's internal library, SoaR, which was developed at first by a highly motivated TA.

What does SoaR stand for? Snakes on a Robot, of course.

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#16

Post by abstractbill »

maggie wrote: post #12
jules wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you can convey 95% of the basic ideas in Python But you cannot. Some of the ideas in SICP can nearly be conveyed in Python (like lexical scoping, closures, data types, streams). You'll use built-in language features in Python (classes, generators) instead of implementing the functionality. I think that implementing these things is important if you want to really understand them. An example, cons, car and cdr fro…

You need to remember that 6.001 is an /introductory/ programming course. Presumably most of the people taking it at MIT have done some codework before : ] but an intro. course is an intro. course. The question of what language to use is a pedagogical one, not a question of thoroughness.

But the above examples are taken straight from SICP. Wasn't that the textbook for 6.001 before they switched to Python?

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#17

Post by jerf »

abstractbill wrote: post #16
maggie wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to remember that 6.001 is an /introductory/ programming course. Presumably most of the people taking it at MIT have done some codework before : ] but an intro. course is an intro. course. The question of what language to use is a pedagogical one, not a question of thoroughness.

But the above examples are taken straight from SICP. Wasn't that the textbook for 6.001 before they switched to Python?

Which sort of wanders back around to begging the question; is that still the best way to start teaching, as Sussman talks about?

I ask myself, "how would I teach my son to program?", and for all my copious academic and practical experience, "start with re-implementing car and cdr from lambda functions" isn't even remotely in the running. Sure, I'd introduce such things earlier than most people and SICP is still firmly in the running, but for that to be an introduction in the general case? Not so sure.

There's definitely an argument to be made that robotics is in many ways a much more realistic starting point. While some people may find the idea that we should actually start out by making a case to the students that their major is cool and important and gives them the ability to affect things in the real world vaguely repulsive, I'd say that it's an idea at least worth considering. The student that can leap from lambda, car, and cdr, to realizing that right in the introductory course is so exceptional that you're not going to hold them back anyhow.

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#18

Post by brlewis »

trjordan wrote: post #3

I think there's something else here, implicit in Sussman's comment, that's important. MIT was founded on a philosophy of practicality, and everything else is secondary. If you couple that with the belief that fundamental computer science is the most efficient way to enhance practical software engineering, Scheme was a wonderful choice. Java and C++ may have been more directly practical to software engineers, but they…

Another good argument for not mourning the passing of Scheme is that it isn't dead. You just used it when you posted your comment. HN is implemented in Arc which is implemented in Scheme.

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#19

Post by tlb »

stcredzero wrote: post #14
trjordan wrote: post #3

I think there's something else here, implicit in Sussman's comment, that's important. MIT was founded on a philosophy of practicality, and everything else is secondary. If you couple that with the belief that fundamental computer science is the most efficient way to enhance practical software engineering, Scheme was a wonderful choice. Java and C++ may have been more directly practical to software engineers, but they…

My concern is that "practicality" is often just a code word for "resembles Java or whatever else I was comfortable with so I can continue on doing what I've always done before." (With the result that the student learns less than if they were required to do something truly different.) Reminds me of this post that came up on HN not too long ago: http://funcall.blogspot.com/2009/03/not-lisp-again.html

I think here, "practicality" means "has a library for controlling robots". Also a good numeric library, a good matlab-like graphing library, good 3D graphics, good real-time performance, easy C++ embedding, etc.

Rather than complaining about how everyone else is a bonehead for not using Lisp, write some libraries to make it useful for more things in the real world.

Also, Python does pretty well for real-time control. At Anybots we use it to run walking balance feedback loops at 100 Hz in the same process as a GUI and logging and it never misses a tick. PLT Scheme (used on HN) frequently pauses for 10+ seconds to GC. While there are theoretical concurrent GC systems for Lisp, none of them seem usable in real implementations.

Re: Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python

#20

Post by swannodette »

rjprins wrote: post #13
time_management wrote: post #9

I wonder, if the switch had been made now, it they would have switched to Clojure instead of Python. It's a lot closer to Scheme, and its connection to the JVM gives it a lot of practical power. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Clojure is still something of a small hype. Python is a 18 year-old programming language.

Clojure is a Lisp. Lisp is 50 years old.
Post reply on HN