5 ms·

Not necessarily as relevant, programming has changed a lot since SICP came out. Sussman says so himself - https://youtu.be/OgRFOjVzvm0 https://youtu.be/OgRFOjVz

by jstx1 3y ago

Not necessarily as relevant, programming has changed a lot since SICP came out. Sussman says so himself - https://youtu.be/OgRFOjVzvm0 https://youtu.be/OgRFOjVzvm0

db48x 3y ago
Did geometry become irrelevant once we stopped caring about field boundaries along the flooding river Nile?
- joaogui1 3y ago
  I think the real comparison is "has the proportion of the population that needs to know how to take care of farm animals gone down?"
  - db48x 3y ago
    I don’t really think so. If you decide to become a farmer, then care of farm animals may be very relevant to you. Similarly, if you decide to become a software engineer or computer scientist then SICP is very relevant to you. Not everyone uses geometry every day, but engineers do. And we all depend on engineers, so the understanding of geometry is a fundamental underpinning of our entire society. The same can be said of computer science. We don’t all program for a living, but the structure and interpretation of computer programs (the literal structure and interpretation, not the book) is becoming an ever larger factor in how our society functions.
bmitc 3y ago
I would wager that Sussman is being friendly and diplomatic towards his department here. I think the move away from SICP was primarily due to Sussman and Abelson tiring of teaching the course, which I believe Sussman says here or in another talk, changing tides in the landscape of universities and their relation to the job market, and a departmental political move. The move to Python was probably as much of a marketing choice and personal choice based upon leadership in the department than anything. There's an MIT professor, John Guttag, that wrote the Python book that they use and that's used in MIT's MITx and edX courses. I doubt he just wrote it and then the department just happened to later switch to Python and adopt the book. I think Sussman's answer is more of an observation of the result of the switch and not an explanation why. MIT is a slave to fundraising, and I suspect the industry trends of programming languages, funding sources, job market, and other marketing and political decisions led to the change over anything actually technical.

by jstx1 3y ago

Not necessarily as relevant, programming has changed a lot since SICP came out. Sussman says so himself - https://youtu.be/OgRFOjVzvm0 https://youtu.be/OgRFOjVzvm0

db48x 3y ago

Did geometry become irrelevant once we stopped caring about field boundaries along the flooding river Nile?

joaogui1 3y ago
I think the real comparison is "has the proportion of the population that needs to know how to take care of farm animals gone down?"
- db48x 3y ago
  I don’t really think so. If you decide to become a farmer, then care of farm animals may be very relevant to you. Similarly, if you decide to become a software engineer or computer scientist then SICP is very relevant to you. Not everyone uses geometry every day, but engineers do. And we all depend on engineers, so the understanding of geometry is a fundamental underpinning of our entire society. The same can be said of computer science. We don’t all program for a living, but the structure and interpretation of computer programs (the literal structure and interpretation, not the book) is becoming an ever larger factor in how our society functions.

bmitc 3y ago

I would wager that Sussman is being friendly and diplomatic towards his department here. I think the move away from SICP was primarily due to Sussman and Abelson tiring of teaching the course, which I believe Sussman says here or in another talk, changing tides in the landscape of universities and their relation to the job market, and a departmental political move. The move to Python was probably as much of a marketing choice and personal choice based upon leadership in the department than anything. There's an MIT professor, John Guttag, that wrote the Python book that they use and that's used in MIT's MITx and edX courses. I doubt he just wrote it and then the department just happened to later switch to Python and adopt the book. I think Sussman's answer is more of an observation of the result of the switch and not an explanation why. MIT is a slave to fundraising, and I suspect the industry trends of programming languages, funding sources, job market, and other marketing and political decisions led to the change over anything actually technical.