4 ms·
Based on: Forbus, K. D. (1985). Structure and interpretation of computer programs. Artificial Intelligence, 27(1), 124–127. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(85)90087: "se
by vario 3y ago
Based 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.
- vario 3y agoAs I said, I am pretty sure I remember seeing that phrase by Wadler but can't find the paper now. However, even in your link, Wadler says: -"SICP is a brilliant book, but it is also a dangerous one. It is dangerous because it teaches students to scheme instead of to calculate." - "SICP is a book about Scheme, not about programming." - "SICP's emphasis on the 'scheming' approach to programming is a mistake." - "SICP does not adequately teach the fundamentals of programming." Is that what you call intellectually honest?
- Jtsummers 3y agoI call it a disagreement, there are many of these kinds of disagreements especially in pedagogy. Sometimes people use strong and charged language in disagreements. It is not "intellectually dishonest" (quoting you, not Wadler since you still can't back that attribution) to write a book using Scheme just because others think Miranda (at the time, or another language today) would have been a better language. It would only have been intellectually dishonest if they knowingly chose Scheme to create an inferior experience (to what purpose?). And I still contend that you are an intellectually dishonest person until you can properly attribute that quote to Wadler, or concede that you were wrong and made a false claim.
- vario 3y ago