3 ms·
I took 6.001 at MIT in the 80's. Clearly, Abelson and Sussman did not choose Scheme because of it's popularity in industry, not even then. Nor did Barbara Lis
by gonewest 15y ago
I took 6.001 at MIT in the 80's. Clearly, Abelson and Sussman did not choose Scheme because of it's popularity in industry, not even then. Nor did Barbara Liskov expect us to use CLU professionally, but that was the language for 6.170 back then (I think they teach it in Java now).
So this movement to "port" SICP to Python or whatever other modern language seems to misunderstand the purpose of the book.
Come back in another 25 years and let's talk about which version of the book is still considered classic.
- brlewis 15y agoI also took 6.001 in the '80s and loved it, although the hardware was totally inadequate for Scheme. Code ran painfully slow. I adopted C and programmed in it for 12 years before coming back around to Scheme. I just pushed some new Scheme code to my photoblog service, OurDoings, before I came here and saw this post.
- boohay 15y agoSo this movement to "port" SICP to Python or whatever other modern language seems to misunderstand the purpose of the book. In your opinion, what's the purpose of the book? How has learning SICP helped you from the 80's through today?