5 ms·
Code from MIT's 1986 SICP video lectures
- hnarayanan 1y agoThis is such a fun class!
- retr0rocket 1y ago[dead]
- aesbetic 1y agoIn the first lecture, Abelson says Computer Science is neither a science nor is it really about computers. Considering the current ML paradigm, maybe CS has finally earned its name as a science.
- gjvc 1y agoquite the opposite
- bmitc 1y agoWhat about the current ML paradigm makes it a science?
- computerfriend 1y agoObserving and testing phenomena we don't understand.
- mcmoor 1y agoI guess it's been progressing from being math, to natural science, to social science
- aesbetic 1y agoWe have “laws” and routinely conduct “experiments” which are kind of unheard of in CS.
- bmitc 1y agoDo you have any references I could learn about these types of laws and experiments?
- postexitus 1y agoIt is one of the most memorable first lectures in the history of Computer Science.
- xdavidliu 1y agoi watched the lecture series during the pandemic and commented on many of the youtube videos. in at least one instance, a library function is used on the board that is not compatible with the current function signature in mit scheme.
- ted_dunning 1y agoOh no. I suppose it is something to do with the fact that it has been, what, almost 40 years since the lectures? The fact that most of the code would still work is a miracle. That wouldn't work for, say, Java (which didn't exist in 1986). Nor C++. Nor Javascript (also not there back then). Fortran and C might be able to pull it off (but barely). Remember, we didn't have computers worth the name back then. Shoot, we didn't even have dirt yet, just rocks.
- millerm 1y ago> That wouldn't work for, say, Java The ~29 years deprecated java.util.Date* methods would like to have a word. ;-) *https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/25/docs/api/java.base/java/util/Date.html https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/25/docs/api/java.base...
- shawn_w 1y agoWhich function?
- jgwil2 1y agoUse the racket #sicp language: https://docs.racket-lang.org/sicp-manual/SICP_Language.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/sicp-manual/SICP_Language.html
- tmtvl 1y agoThe SICP video lectures with Gerald Sussman and Harold Abelson got me into Scheme and from there on Lisp. Although now I'm wondering if this would be better as a 'Show HN' submission.
- 725686 1y agoIf you are into SICP, you would probably like a nicely formatted html version of the book: https://sarabander.github.io/sicp/html/index.xhtml#SEC_Contents https://sarabander.github.io/sicp/html/index.xhtml#SEC_Conte... And also this: https://eli.thegreenplace.net/tag/sicp https://eli.thegreenplace.net/tag/sicp
- lioeters 1y agoThe nicely formatted SICP is also available in downloadable formats. EPUB - https://github.com/sarabander/sicp-epub/blob/master/sicp.epub?raw=true https://github.com/sarabander/sicp-epub/blob/master/sicp.epu... PDF - https://github.com/sarabander/sicp-pdf/raw/master/sicp.pdf https://github.com/sarabander/sicp-pdf/raw/master/sicp.pdf
- cipherself 1y agoMoreover, you can have SICP inside emacs by just downloading a package from Melpa: https://melpa.org/#/sicp https://melpa.org/#/sicp
- carverauto 1y agowould be better if you could just use AI to re-do those particular scenes in the video series..
- lgas 1y agowhy can't you?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- so-cal-schemer 1y agoI'd been hoping to do just this, but don't quite have the resources.
- vismit2000 1y agoMost of the code from the book is also available here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13918465 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13918465
- matheusmoreira 1y agoThere's also this interesting study about the difficulty and time requirement of SICP's exercises: https://lockywolf.wordpress.com/2021/02/08/solving-sicp/ https://lockywolf.wordpress.com/2021/02/08/solving-sicp/ The math stuff is brutal.
- Jtsummers 1y agoTake that writeup with a massive grain of salt. The author claims they spent 459 minutes on exercise 1.1, that exercise is this: > Exercise 1.1: Below is a sequence of expressions. What is the result printed by the interpreter in response to each expression? Assume that the sequence is to be evaluated in the order in which it is presented. There are then 12 simple expressions to evaluate. That is, it took them nearly 40 minutes for each expression. Exercise 2.46 took them 535 minutes to implement. It wasn't even complex math, they needed to create a 2d-vector data type (their choice on implementation details) with a constructor, accessors, addition, subtraction, and scaling. That should not have taken 9 hours to complete (not by that point in the book at least).