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

> In fact, I’d go further and say that it’s the only computer science book of that age that I’d happily and usefully read again without it being just for historical interest: the content has barely aged at all. That’s not all that unusual for mathematics books, but it’s almost unheard of in computer science, where the ideas move so quickly and where much of what’s written about is ephemeral rather than foundational.

I recall that when MIT stopped teaching with SICP, one of the main claims was that programming now is often not about thinking abstractions through from first principles, and creating some isolated gem of composing definitions. Instead, we interact with and rely on a rich ecosystem of libraries and tools which often have individual quirks and discordant assumptions, and engineering then takes on a flavor of discovering and exploring the properties and limitations of those technologies.

I think now, (some) people also are at the point of not even directly learning about the limitations and capability of each tool in their toolbox, but leaning heavily on generative tools to suggest low-level tactics. I think this will lead to an even messier future, where library code which works on (possibly generated) unit tests will bear some fragile assumption which was never even realized in the head of the engineer that prompted for it, and will not only fail but will be incorporated in training data and generated in the future.

I've witnessed how abandoning first principles undermines the evolution of a system. If our mental model of a system is not formalized into first principles (i.e. a high-level specification), then successive generations of engineers will have to re-learn those principles through trial-and-error. They'll introduce mutations and dependencies between the mutations-- and when they leave, the next generation of maintainers will repeat the process. Generations of mutations eventually create a brittle, calcified creature of a system which people fear to touch with a ten foot poll.

I imagine people who were taught SICP would be more respectful, if not inclined, towards a formal articulation of a system's principles.

This philosophy is described in depth in the original 1985 article https://gwern.net/doc/cs/algorithm/1985-naur.pdf and in more accessible language in https://www.baldurbjarnason.com/2022/theory-building/. You can also observe engineers opposing/misunderstanding the need for specification in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42114874