4 ms·

> I'm having trouble understanding why the derivative example was so impressive to the author. Says someone 35 years later. :) Probably every (commonly found)

> I'm having trouble understanding why the derivative example was so impressive to the author. Says someone 35 years later. :) Probably every (commonly found) derivative example, and the majority of languages with first class functions all come from this example. MIT introducing Scheme and those two professors writing SICP are a large part of the reason for the current functional programming landscape. Without them I believe they'd still be as niche as APL.

pjmlp 10y ago
I only got to read SICP almost a decade after finishing my degree, it wasn't even a thing at my university. We got to learn FP via Caml Light, Standard ML, pure lambda calculus and we also had some LP classes via Prolog. Those of us that learned Lisp did it to customize Emacs.
- SolarNet 10y ago
  > Caml Light, Standard ML, pure lambda calculus The first two being based lisp, and the third being what inspired lisp. It's like saying: I learned low level imperative programming from using Go, C++, and register machines. Which, sure, but the C language was hugely influential to all of that.
  - kristianp 10y ago
    >The first two being based lisp Really?
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    What does ML, initially developed for theorem proving, have to do with Lisp?
    - SolarNet 10y ago
      Because lisp is good at anything? But especially alternative evaluation systems (of which theorem proving is one). Because they took lisp and added types to it; via the ISWIM language document ("The Next 700 Programming Languages") which was based off of the original lisp. Because the lisp language family is a formulation of lambda calculus and has first class functions, unlike any other language family at the time, and that is necessary for theorem proving that is based on lambda calculus. Because they likely prototyped the system in a set of lisp macros before writing the language (all the authors knew lisp and had taught each other it).
      - pjmlp 10y ago
        Can you point me to a good reference paper about this?
        SolarNet 10y ago
        No one has really written a paper about the history of all this (I also mentioned this paper [1] in one of my other comments). But if you read the original ML paper [0] you'll see how they developed the language (notably by using ISWIM's syntax as a base). Note also that they are solving a problem with LISP (and dismissing Algol languages entirely) by building in strong types. [0] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022000078900144 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/00220000789... [1] https://archive.alvb.in/msc/11_infomtpt/papers/the-next-700_Landin_dk.pdf https://archive.alvb.in/msc/11_infomtpt/papers/the-next-700_...

pjmlp 10y ago

I only got to read SICP almost a decade after finishing my degree, it wasn't even a thing at my university. We got to learn FP via Caml Light, Standard ML, pure lambda calculus and we also had some LP classes via Prolog. Those of us that learned Lisp did it to customize Emacs.

SolarNet 10y ago
> Caml Light, Standard ML, pure lambda calculus The first two being based lisp, and the third being what inspired lisp. It's like saying: I learned low level imperative programming from using Go, C++, and register machines. Which, sure, but the C language was hugely influential to all of that.
- kristianp 10y ago
  >The first two being based lisp Really?
- pjmlp 10y ago
  What does ML, initially developed for theorem proving, have to do with Lisp?
  - SolarNet 10y ago
    Because lisp is good at anything? But especially alternative evaluation systems (of which theorem proving is one). Because they took lisp and added types to it; via the ISWIM language document ("The Next 700 Programming Languages") which was based off of the original lisp. Because the lisp language family is a formulation of lambda calculus and has first class functions, unlike any other language family at the time, and that is necessary for theorem proving that is based on lambda calculus. Because they likely prototyped the system in a set of lisp macros before writing the language (all the authors knew lisp and had taught each other it).
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      Can you point me to a good reference paper about this?
      - SolarNet 10y ago
        No one has really written a paper about the history of all this (I also mentioned this paper [1] in one of my other comments). But if you read the original ML paper [0] you'll see how they developed the language (notably by using ISWIM's syntax as a base). Note also that they are solving a problem with LISP (and dismissing Algol languages entirely) by building in strong types. [0] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022000078900144 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/00220000789... [1] https://archive.alvb.in/msc/11_infomtpt/papers/the-next-700_Landin_dk.pdf https://archive.alvb.in/msc/11_infomtpt/papers/the-next-700_...