3 ms·

Are they still going to teach Scheme in any other course(s)? Why not teach both? I had the privilege of taking an SICP-based course at the U(C). The brain-st

by wensing 18y ago

Are they still going to teach Scheme in any other course(s)? Why not teach both? I had the privilege of taking an SICP-based course at the U(C). The brain-stretching is critical, isn't it? Yes, there's a lot of head-slamming that goes into modern development, but that's not really the same thing.

carterschonwald 18y ago
over IAP I heard they did a bootcamp version of the scheme course.
- rosh 18y ago
  this is the link: http://web.mit.edu/alexmv/6.001/ http://web.mit.edu/alexmv/6.001/
jerf 18y ago
Python may not be a scheme, but it does have what they used to call functional programming, low-grade continuations with the generators, and some other stuff like that. Python may not stuff its academic credentials in your face, but I think it has one of the better balances between what you can use it to teach, and what you must teach to use it. (Referencing the common and IMHO justified complaint that the simplest possible Java program requires rather a lot of stuff to be taught before you fully comprehend it.) Teach Scheme later... or perhaps, fully distinguish between academic and practical by starting with Python to get you going then transitioning to an ML or Haskell later. (That approach has a lot of appeal to me personally, and has the benefit of the student coming out with at least one useful-in-the-industry language (Python) without compromising academic utility very much.)
- silentbicycle 18y ago
  Python has some issues that can really interfere with doing Scheme-style FP in in it (no tail-call optimization, single-expression-only lambdas, closure/scope problems, general hostility from Guido), but IMHO it's a great general-purpose language, and well suited to teaching, particularly for introducing higher-order functions. Lua has much more Scheme influence than Python does (while being otherwise pretty similar). Its design assumes proficiency with C, however, so, while very practical, it's probably not as good a language for people new to programming.
  - jerf 18y ago
    Yeah, that's why I called it "what they used to call functional programming". Functions are first-class values and closures are easy to get at. (Some people quibble with the exact implementation, but they are definitely there. Such people will be happier with Python 3.0, but still not entirely satisfied.) This is what "functional programming" used to mean. Now it means having immutable values, tail recursion, easy lambdas, powerful type systems, and so on. There's a clear historical progression from past to present, but there's still been changes in what the term means over time which means that different people mean different things by "functional programming" if they don't clarify.
    - silentbicycle 18y ago
      Agreed. I originally said "lisp-style", but changed it to "scheme-style" for just that reason.
  - abecedarius 18y ago
    I didn't miss tail-call optimization much when I studied SICP using XLisp back in the 80s (with 640kb of memory) -- only a couple exercises blew the stack and made me add a while loop. Of course it matters more for real programming on real data, and I agree with your comment generally.

by wensing 18y ago

carterschonwald 18y ago

over IAP I heard they did a bootcamp version of the scheme course.

rosh 18y ago
this is the link: http://web.mit.edu/alexmv/6.001/ http://web.mit.edu/alexmv/6.001/

jerf 18y ago

Python may not be a scheme, but it does have what they used to call functional programming, low-grade continuations with the generators, and some other stuff like that. Python may not stuff its academic credentials in your face, but I think it has one of the better balances between what you can use it to teach, and what you must teach to use it. (Referencing the common and IMHO justified complaint that the simplest possible Java program requires rather a lot of stuff to be taught before you fully comprehend it.) Teach Scheme later... or perhaps, fully distinguish between academic and practical by starting with Python to get you going then transitioning to an ML or Haskell later. (That approach has a lot of appeal to me personally, and has the benefit of the student coming out with at least one useful-in-the-industry language (Python) without compromising academic utility very much.)

silentbicycle 18y ago
Python has some issues that can really interfere with doing Scheme-style FP in in it (no tail-call optimization, single-expression-only lambdas, closure/scope problems, general hostility from Guido), but IMHO it's a great general-purpose language, and well suited to teaching, particularly for introducing higher-order functions. Lua has much more Scheme influence than Python does (while being otherwise pretty similar). Its design assumes proficiency with C, however, so, while very practical, it's probably not as good a language for people new to programming.
- jerf 18y ago
  Yeah, that's why I called it "what they used to call functional programming". Functions are first-class values and closures are easy to get at. (Some people quibble with the exact implementation, but they are definitely there. Such people will be happier with Python 3.0, but still not entirely satisfied.) This is what "functional programming" used to mean. Now it means having immutable values, tail recursion, easy lambdas, powerful type systems, and so on. There's a clear historical progression from past to present, but there's still been changes in what the term means over time which means that different people mean different things by "functional programming" if they don't clarify.
  - silentbicycle 18y ago
    Agreed. I originally said "lisp-style", but changed it to "scheme-style" for just that reason.
- abecedarius 18y ago
  I didn't miss tail-call optimization much when I studied SICP using XLisp back in the 80s (with 640kb of memory) -- only a couple exercises blew the stack and made me add a while loop. Of course it matters more for real programming on real data, and I agree with your comment generally.