31–40 of 52 posts
If you want to work through SICP, you can use MIT Scheme, but another option is to use Racket or DrRacket, with this add-on package: https://docs.racket-lang.org/sicp-manual/
What could someone interested in systems programming gain from this?
unless you mean 'systems programming' as just 'the crap one does to try to glue together all the grotty pre-existing systems' and 'developing a good sense of taste about 3rd party libraries', in which case no, its not really very relevant.
although even here there is insight, I watched a video of Sussman describing why they were putting down SICP and demanding that MIT develop new introductory courses. he was so graceful and considered, putting his polished jewels away. the time when we could reasonably be expected to see across and through all the layers of abstraction was over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is indeed how University learning used to work, for about 1000 years
It's *supposed* to work. In reality you get lectures from individuals that became professors because they are great at politics/research but not at teaching (very different skill). If you even get them and not their 25 year old assistants. And this is apparently super common even in ivy league universities as Youtube lessons have shown me over and over.
Be thankful when you get the 25 year old PhD students & post-docs. They care more about teaching and remember learning the material recently and are more willing to talk & help you.
What could someone interested in systems programming gain from this?
these talks distill out the core questions of topics like mutability and state management and abstraction. almost uniquely so. so I consider them deeply relevant to systems programming in as much that its primarily concerned with..state management and abstraction. unless you mean 'systems programming' as just 'the crap one does to try to glue together all the grotty pre-existing systems' and 'developing a good sense…
What could someone interested in systems programming gain from this?
these talks distill out the core questions of topics like mutability and state management and abstraction. almost uniquely so. so I consider them deeply relevant to systems programming in as much that its primarily concerned with..state management and abstraction. unless you mean 'systems programming' as just 'the crap one does to try to glue together all the grotty pre-existing systems' and 'developing a good sense…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
these talks distill out the core questions of topics like mutability and state management and abstraction. almost uniquely so. so I consider them deeply relevant to systems programming in as much that its primarily concerned with..state management and abstraction. unless you mean 'systems programming' as just 'the crap one does to try to glue together all the grotty pre-existing systems' and 'developing a good sense…
addendum: actually I think the case for SICP in systems programming is stronger than that. There are several places in the material where the gap between 'high level programming' and 'construction of machines using gates' is thoroughly walked through and evaporated. maybe some of of the other similar treatments for logic programming and continuous analysis won't strike as deep, but that part should really be required…
Should I do the JS or Scheme SICP
I’ve never understood, therefore, the motivation behind trying to “translate” SICP into a language like JS (or Python, etc.) It over emphasizes the importance of the preferred language in a way that very obviously undermines the book.
The point being: if you’re gonna do SICP do it in Scheme. You’ll get more out of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's *supposed* to work. In reality you get lectures from individuals that became professors because they are great at politics/research but not at teaching (very different skill). If you even get them and not their 25 year old assistants. And this is apparently super common even in ivy league universities as Youtube lessons have shown me over and over.
All that, and it’s still better than just reading the book on your own. :P Be thankful when you get the 25 year old PhD students & post-docs. They care more about teaching and remember learning the material recently and are more willing to talk & help you.
Plenty of courses taught by brilliant individuals that were just bad at teaching or borderline not prepared.
Some courses (like biochemistry) were effectively useless as de facto you had to memorize 600 pages of Lehninger's book anyway. There's nothing to understand in the Krebs cycle.
I also vividly remember exams like advanced algebra were the professor genuinely did nothing but rewrite canned content on a board and could not really shed light on anything, you were on your own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
addendum: actually I think the case for SICP in systems programming is stronger than that. There are several places in the material where the gap between 'high level programming' and 'construction of machines using gates' is thoroughly walked through and evaporated. maybe some of of the other similar treatments for logic programming and continuous analysis won't strike as deep, but that part should really be required…
All of the lectures? I did SICP as a freshman in 2005 but not all of it and have never watched these lectures save for the one where Abelson wears a fez and jokes about Kabbalah at the beginning.
but I haven't gone through the video lectures or even all of SICP. but those that I did have had a lasting impact. particularly the erasure of the declarative/procedural dichotomy..thats been a very useful tool
This is how I learned lisp. I then went on to learn Clojure and built a career around it.