3 ms·

I you have finished SICP (including exercises) I will posit you must be a pretty decent programmer. (Which is not necessarily the same as a good developer, but

by olavk 8y ago

I you have finished SICP (including exercises) I will posit you must be a pretty decent programmer. (Which is not necessarily the same as a good developer, but that is a different discussion.)

braythwayt 8y ago
The cliché observation is that "correlation does not equal causation." It's interesting to think about that: Given that you have to choose to read SICP, and chosen to work your way through it, including choosing to use Scheme instead of whatever is popular today and so forth, and given that SICP is unlikely to get you a job ("Oh, you read SICP? You're hired, you awesome hacker!"), is it possible that you already have certain qualities that correlate with being a pretty decent programmer? I mean, it's not like reading SICP is free. You're choosing to read it when you could be reading something just as informative and considerably more practical. So are you already a pretty decent programmer? Going down this rabbit-hole of reasoning, I also wonder, "If you're reading about SICP on Hacker News and decide to read SICP because it sounds interesting, are you a different kind of person than if you decide to read SICP because there seems to be a strong social signal around being a decent programmer if you read SICP? Those two motivations are obviously not the same. And now I'm trying to remember why I read SICP way back when. I'd like to flatter myself that I was intellectually curious and read it for its own sake, but to be transparently candid, I'm not so sure I wasn't trying to be like the kind of people I admired at the time.
- olavk 8y ago
  But wasn't it used for introductory CS courses? Perhaps someone can chime in about how it worked.
  - braythwayt 8y ago
    It was used for introductory courses at MIT, but no longer. If we look st those who took it as a course, we have to consider that they are already taking a CS course, and at MIT, no less. Once again, correlation? Or causation?
    - zaptheimpaler 8y ago
      My guess - In the short term, those who read it based on signaling value (the "pretenders") will be worse programmers than those who read it purely for fun ("the originals"). But in the long term, action matters more than intent. Those who kept "pretending" and kept learning (no matter the reason) will be just as good or better.
    - olavk 8y ago
      I know correlation is not causation but come on... if a set of students follows as CS introductory course and ends up learning some CS during the span of course, it is overreaching to assume the CS course had something to do with it.
  - gumby 8y ago
    When the book was written it was not unusual for new students to arrive at MIT without any computer experience. So that book was often their very first exposure to computer programming.

by olavk 8y ago

I you have finished SICP (including exercises) I will posit you must be a pretty decent programmer. (Which is not necessarily the same as a good developer, but that is a different discussion.)

braythwayt 8y ago

The cliché observation is that "correlation does not equal causation." It's interesting to think about that: Given that you have to choose to read SICP, and chosen to work your way through it, including choosing to use Scheme instead of whatever is popular today and so forth, and given that SICP is unlikely to get you a job ("Oh, you read SICP? You're hired, you awesome hacker!"), is it possible that you already have certain qualities that correlate with being a pretty decent programmer? I mean, it's not like reading SICP is free. You're choosing to read it when you could be reading something just as informative and considerably more practical. So are you already a pretty decent programmer? Going down this rabbit-hole of reasoning, I also wonder, "If you're reading about SICP on Hacker News and decide to read SICP because it sounds interesting, are you a different kind of person than if you decide to read SICP because there seems to be a strong social signal around being a decent programmer if you read SICP? Those two motivations are obviously not the same. And now I'm trying to remember why I read SICP way back when. I'd like to flatter myself that I was intellectually curious and read it for its own sake, but to be transparently candid, I'm not so sure I wasn't trying to be like the kind of people I admired at the time.

olavk 8y ago
But wasn't it used for introductory CS courses? Perhaps someone can chime in about how it worked.
- braythwayt 8y ago
  It was used for introductory courses at MIT, but no longer. If we look st those who took it as a course, we have to consider that they are already taking a CS course, and at MIT, no less. Once again, correlation? Or causation?
  - zaptheimpaler 8y ago
    My guess - In the short term, those who read it based on signaling value (the "pretenders") will be worse programmers than those who read it purely for fun ("the originals"). But in the long term, action matters more than intent. Those who kept "pretending" and kept learning (no matter the reason) will be just as good or better.
  - olavk 8y ago
    I know correlation is not causation but come on... if a set of students follows as CS introductory course and ends up learning some CS during the span of course, it is overreaching to assume the CS course had something to do with it.
- gumby 8y ago
  When the book was written it was not unusual for new students to arrive at MIT without any computer experience. So that book was often their very first exposure to computer programming.