SICP: The only computer science book worth reading twice? (2010)

Hot take: SICP and SD4F "considered harmful (without counterpoint)"*.

Why? The modus operandi of problem solving in these books is object oriented programming masquerading as functional programming, and it is presented as a _neutral_ beginner book. It is _not neutral_. This is a very opinionated approach to programming.

To be fair, I do not believe the authors intended for this style of programming to be taken as gospel, but it is often presented _without counterpoint_.

The most powerful technique introduced -- implementing complex behavior via extensible polymorphic generics -- is virtually unmaintainable without a compiler-supported static type checker. You would know that if you ever tried to implement the code yourself in a dynamic language of your choice.

The ramifications of these choices can be felt far and wide and are largely unquestioned.

Ironically, they make code hard to understand, hard to extend, and hard to maintain. I need to reiterate, I do not believe the intention of the authors was to suggest these ideas should be used beyond a pedagogical setting, but they often are.

As a specific critique to SD4F, which states as a goal making code more resilient by emulating biology, I would point to Leslie Lamport's talk on logic vs biology[1].

I would add that I think SICP would be fine if it were taught in tandem with Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming by Peter Norvig[2]. PAIP offers a completely different approach to solving problems, also using lisp. This approach is much closer to constructing a language to model a problem and then solving the problem symbolically using the language created. Areas that use OO techniques, such as the chapter in CLOS, are clearly marked as such.

In other words, I say "SICP considered harmful" because thrusting it upon an eager newcomer as a trusted neutral guide to beginner coding (without offering any counterpoint) could set them back by a decade, filling their head with "functional object oriented programming" concepts that don't translate well to industry or CS.

[*]: I say this as someone who has thoroughly studied both books, implemented the code, taken Dave Beazely courses to have the information spoon fed to me (dabeaz is awesome btw, take all his stuff) and used the techniques in production code bases.

[1]: https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/future-of-computing.p...

[2]: https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp

The first reason why I really loved SICP is that it is based on Scheme, a language with powerful primitives. I came from a self-taught world of PL/1, Algol, C, then later C++, Java etc. None of them had closures, hygienic macros, anonymous functions, functional programming, call/cc, and of course, "amb", the non-deterministic choice operator. At an even more basic level, SICP taught me that a lot of non-trivial code can be written with just sequences and maps, with good enough efficiency!

Because SICP's starting point was so high, they could describe many concepts easily from the ground up, from object oriented programming, backtracking, constraint programming and non-determinism.

This taught me a number of techniques to apply in real-life, because I could readily identify the missing building blocks in the language or system I was given to work with. For example, I was able to build a lightweight threads system in Java quite readily because I knew that the missing piece was a continuations feature in Java.

See https://github.com/kilim/kilim

The Smalltalk world has great support for this, through coding in the debugger. You should try Pharo.

I haven't read the book, but my experience is that the way to make things flexible is to make them simple as possible.

When I've used (or built) something that was built in the style like you're talking about, it's almost always wrong, and the extra complexity and stuff now makes it harder to do right. It's not surprising: unknown future requirements are unknown. Over building is trying to predict the future.

It's like someone building a shed and pouring a foundation that can work for a skyscraper. Except it turns out what we needed was a house that has a different footprint. Or maybe the skyscraper is twice the height and has a stop for the newly-built underneath. Now we have to break apart the foundation before we can even begin work on new stuff; it would have been less work if the original just used a foundation for a shed.

That and the art of computer programming