4 ms·
Sincerely no snark intended. But this comment and another about "bottom-up" via Assembly and C kinda show that maybe you've missed the point. We can blame SICP
by kjeetgill 4y ago
Sincerely no snark intended. But this comment and another about "bottom-up" via Assembly and C kinda show that maybe you've missed the point.
We can blame SICP itself for that maybe, but it's all in the name: Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. It's abstract because it's not about actually physical computing — nor is it trying to take you to the same place as learning computing from hardware, "bottoms-up" is meant to but via some other mathematical means.
It's trying to teach you to reason about computer programs by it's structures — that they aren't just a list of instructions.
Reading Shakespeare won't teach you grammar but they'll help you be a better reader and writer in their own ways!
- jeffreyrogers 4y agoYes, I understand the motivation for SICP. There are similar trends in mathematics where some people like an abstracted, axiomatized presentation and others like something more intuitive. I'm in the later group as are many others. I don't think either way is superior in itself, nor do people who learn from one approach or the other turn into better programmers.