3 ms·

You know how people love to repeat that old saw about how computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes (or whatever it is)? We

You know how people love to repeat that old saw about how computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes (or whatever it is)? Well ironically (because it's the same exact people but this time on the other side of the misunderstanding) SICP is no more about scheme/lisp than computer science is about computers.

jedberg 3y ago
SICP is not about scheme or lisp, but its concepts are best understood in scheme in lisp. Just like the best way to understand what Saturn looks like is to look at it though a telescope. Sure you can use a spectrum scan or the output of a radio telescope, but it's really not the same as looking at in a telescope. Same thing here -- SICP just isn't the same if it's not in scheme or lisp.
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > Just like the best way to understand what Saturn looks like is to look at it though a telescope. So then astronomy is about telescopes...? I'm happy to accept SICP is intimately related to lisp (which means it is less general than people claim) but just as long as we're consistent.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jedberg 3y ago
    > So then astronomy is about telescopes...? No? I never said that. SICP teaches concepts, those concepts are better understood with lisp. Astronomy teaches concepts, those concepts are better understood with telescopes. In neither case is the subject about the tool, it's just better understood with the tool.
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      I just really think you should be ready to accept the full force of your words: >Same thing here -- SICP just isn't the same if it's not in scheme or lisp. That straight up reads like SICP and lisp are inseparable and that exactly means that SICP is not as general as people claim. What we have here is unstoppable force meets immovable object (otherwise known as a contradiction). The resolution is simple: either SICP is valuable for the ideas, in which case renderings in js or python are fine, or SICP's value is diminished without lisp, in which case it's not actually about ideas but about the language of choice. Can't have it both ways.
      - jedberg 3y ago
        You have your causation backwards. SICP has valuable ideas in it. But those ideas are best understood using a particular tool. You can use other tools to understand it, but it will be more work and you won't understand it as well. Just like you could use a screwdriver to drive a nail into a board. But it will be easier and better understood if you use a hammer. The nail provides the same value either way.
      - ryanklee 3y ago
        Oh come on, would you reckon that SICP would be just as good in Assembly? Just because computation is substrate independent doesn't mean our brains don't care about the form computational concepts are expressed in.
        mathisfun123 3y ago
        i have a pretty simple perspective on SICP and lisp: neither are that amazing and both are idiosyncratic examples of a very generic thing (ds&a book and programming language, respectively) and also both attract a cargo cult following.
      - lispm 3y ago
        > That straight up reads like SICP and lisp are inseparable and that exactly means that SICP is not as general as people claim. They are separable, but there is a loss of elegance. For example Scheme has linked lists and symbols built-in in an elegant way. The JavaScript version tries to provide them, but in a clunky way. Symbols are replaced by strings and the (a b c) notation of Scheme looks as ["a", ["b", ["c", null]]] or list("a" "b" "c") in the JavaScript version. That a text may make use of the language it is written in, that should not be surprising. Thus the language shapes what and how it is said.
lolinder 3y ago
I've tried to go through the JS version, and I have to disagree. I know enough Scheme to see why the book is structured the way it is, but it doesn't work well in JS. The patterns that seem so natural in Scheme are contrived to the point of being distracting in JavaScript.

jedberg 3y ago

SICP is not about scheme or lisp, but its concepts are best understood in scheme in lisp. Just like the best way to understand what Saturn looks like is to look at it though a telescope. Sure you can use a spectrum scan or the output of a radio telescope, but it's really not the same as looking at in a telescope. Same thing here -- SICP just isn't the same if it's not in scheme or lisp.

mathisfun123 3y ago
> Just like the best way to understand what Saturn looks like is to look at it though a telescope. So then astronomy is about telescopes...? I'm happy to accept SICP is intimately related to lisp (which means it is less general than people claim) but just as long as we're consistent.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jedberg 3y ago
  > So then astronomy is about telescopes...? No? I never said that. SICP teaches concepts, those concepts are better understood with lisp. Astronomy teaches concepts, those concepts are better understood with telescopes. In neither case is the subject about the tool, it's just better understood with the tool.
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    I just really think you should be ready to accept the full force of your words: >Same thing here -- SICP just isn't the same if it's not in scheme or lisp. That straight up reads like SICP and lisp are inseparable and that exactly means that SICP is not as general as people claim. What we have here is unstoppable force meets immovable object (otherwise known as a contradiction). The resolution is simple: either SICP is valuable for the ideas, in which case renderings in js or python are fine, or SICP's value is diminished without lisp, in which case it's not actually about ideas but about the language of choice. Can't have it both ways.
    - jedberg 3y ago
      You have your causation backwards. SICP has valuable ideas in it. But those ideas are best understood using a particular tool. You can use other tools to understand it, but it will be more work and you won't understand it as well. Just like you could use a screwdriver to drive a nail into a board. But it will be easier and better understood if you use a hammer. The nail provides the same value either way.
    - ryanklee 3y ago
      Oh come on, would you reckon that SICP would be just as good in Assembly? Just because computation is substrate independent doesn't mean our brains don't care about the form computational concepts are expressed in.
      - mathisfun123 3y ago
        i have a pretty simple perspective on SICP and lisp: neither are that amazing and both are idiosyncratic examples of a very generic thing (ds&a book and programming language, respectively) and also both attract a cargo cult following.
    - lispm 3y ago
      > That straight up reads like SICP and lisp are inseparable and that exactly means that SICP is not as general as people claim. They are separable, but there is a loss of elegance. For example Scheme has linked lists and symbols built-in in an elegant way. The JavaScript version tries to provide them, but in a clunky way. Symbols are replaced by strings and the (a b c) notation of Scheme looks as ["a", ["b", ["c", null]]] or list("a" "b" "c") in the JavaScript version. That a text may make use of the language it is written in, that should not be surprising. Thus the language shapes what and how it is said.

lolinder 3y ago

I've tried to go through the JS version, and I have to disagree. I know enough Scheme to see why the book is structured the way it is, but it doesn't work well in JS. The patterns that seem so natural in Scheme are contrived to the point of being distracting in JavaScript.