5 ms·
Noob here. What was the justification of SICP using Scheme as vehicle of instruction? I feel the book is intellectually dishonest.
by vario 3y ago
Noob here. What was the justification of SICP using Scheme as vehicle of instruction? I feel the book is intellectually dishonest.
- JonChesterfield 3y agoThe lambda calculus is a big thing in computer science.
- vario 3y agoSICP authors were not the originators of Lambda Calc. Even a noob like me knows that!
- Jtsummers 3y agoWhat's intellectually dishonest about it?
- vario 3y agoBased on: WOOD, A. (2001). Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, 2nd Ed by Abelson and Sussman, with Sussman, MIT Press, 1996, ISBN 0-262-51087-1, 657pp. Journal of Functional Programming, 11(2), 253–262. doi:10.1017/s0956796801223983: "The new material on concurrency is rather a disappointment since such a large and fundamental topic is relegated to little more than a convenient link item between lists and streams. ... The major omission, and it is major, is that types are never fully, or even adequately discussed." There's more.
- cadr 3y agoThe entire instruction of Scheme in 6.001 was less than an hour. You only need a tiny bit and then you can focus on the concepts in the book rather than quirks of some programming language's syntax. I think that is a huge win. On what basis do you find it "intellectually dishonest"?
- vario 3y agoBased on: Forbus, K. D. (1985). Structure and interpretation of computer programs. Artificial Intelligence, 27(1), 124–127. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(85)90087: "several important topics that students should be exposed to early are treated lightly, if at all. Its coverage of fundamental algorithms is spotty - sorting, for instance, is not discussed at all. Another problem inherent in this pedagogical approach is that it does not teach students many of the engineering skills necessary for developing efficient programs on 'real' computers. This can lead to a 'clean fingernails' syndrome. where the student feels no program should be written or used unless it is utterly clean." This is just one. I can't find the paper but Philip Wadler was the original person saying the exact phrase 'intellectually dishonest'.
- loumf 3y agoI think you should judge SICP on what the authors' own intentions were, not on things they weren't trying to do. I didn't get the feeling that cleanness was emphasized or encouraged (any more than in any class). There are other classes that cover fundamental algorithms like sorting, SICP isn't about that. You might find the authors own critique of SICP interesting: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34657535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34657535
- vario 3y agoSo what WERE they trying to do? BTW, here is a list of people who had criticized SICP. The list is full of heavy-weights: Philip Wadler Donald Knuth Eric Raymond Richard Bird Paul Graham Guy Steele Robert Harper Matthias Felleisen Daniel Friedman Christopher Strachey Peter Landin John Backus
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Jtsummers 3y ago> This is just one. I can't find the paper but Philip Wadler was the original person saying the exact phrase 'intellectually dishonest'. https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.pdf https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.... - that's the only Wadler critique of SICP I'm familiar with. Is "intellectually dishonest" in there? I can't find it. In fact, he seems rather positive about the book and it's material, just not Scheme. His critique is focused on the differences between Scheme and Miranda and their applicability to teaching students. I would think it obvious, but maybe not, that attributing your own critique to a more well-known and respected individual without citation is intellectually dishonest.