←back to thread

SICP: The only computer science book worth reading twice? (2010)

(simondobson.org)
460 points pieterr | 5 comments | 16 Nov 24 17:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.443s | source
Show context
munchler ◴[16 Nov 24 19:31 UTC] No.42158589[source]▶
> The computer revolution is a revolution in the way we think and in the way we express what we think. The essence of this change is the emergence of what might best be called procedural epistemology — the study of the structure of knowledge from an imperative point of view, as opposed to the more declarative point of view taken by classical mathematical subjects

Ironic, given the increasing use of functional programming in domains where old-fashioned imperative/OO programming used to reign alone.

replies(1): >>42159002 #
1. namaria ◴[16 Nov 24 20:24 UTC] No.42159002[source]▶
I think in the context of the book 'procedural epistemology' encompasses all programming, not just what you'd call procedural programming.
replies(1): >>42159119 #
2. munchler ◴[16 Nov 24 20:40 UTC] No.42159119[source]▶
Hmm, I don’t think so. Functional programming is definitely based on the “declarative point of view taken by classical mathematical subjects”.
replies(2): >>42159915 #>>42164156 #
3. namaria ◴[16 Nov 24 22:24 UTC] No.42159915[source]▶
I disagree since the book is using a functional programming language to advance the idea that CS is about procedural epistemology as opposed to the declarative stance of maths.

The idea that a 'procedural programming paradigm' exists in contrast with a 'functional programming paradigm' is blogspeak imho.

replies(1): >>42165503 #
4. magical_spell ◴[17 Nov 24 13:44 UTC] No.42164156[source]▶
My understanding agrees with namaria's. I'm inclined to think that, in the passage you provide, `imperative' means `pertaining to processes' (where processes are those things described by procedures; or, perhaps better put, the meanings of procedures).
5. munchler ◴[17 Nov 24 17:35 UTC] No.42165503{3}[source]▶
I see. I didn’t realize the book uses a functional language. Thank you for explaining.