←back to thread

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

(simondobson.org)
460 points pieterr | 2 comments | 16 Nov 24 17:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.417s | source
Show context
abeppu ◴[16 Nov 24 19:35 UTC] No.42158611[source]▶
> 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.

replies(3): >>42158671 #>>42158711 #>>42159102 #
chongli ◴[16 Nov 24 19:47 UTC] No.42158711[source]▶
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.

Which is a category mistake that they actually address in the lectures. SICP is not a programming course, it’s a computer science course. Computer science is not about computers, let alone programming, just as geometry is not about surveying instruments and astronomy is not about telescopes.

When they stopped teaching SICP — in response to the pressure to teach more modern tools — they abandoned their scientific principles to satisfy commercial concerns. They stopped teaching computer science and became a vocational school for the tech industry.

replies(5): >>42159290 #>>42159490 #>>42159706 #>>42163180 #>>42164796 #
PittleyDunkin ◴[16 Nov 24 21:01 UTC] No.42159290[source]▶
> SICP is not a programming course, it’s a computer science course.

I don't see what you mean by this at all. Furthermore this doesn't strike me as a useful distinction when a) it doesn't cover most topics labeled by consensus as "computer science" and b) it very clearly does teach a great deal about programming.

Why not say it teaches computer science and programming skills? Why do these have to be exclusive? There's obviously a great deal of overlap in general.

replies(1): >>42161964 #
1. chongli ◴[17 Nov 24 04:28 UTC] No.42161964[source]▶
I don't see what you mean by this at all

The goal of the course is not to teach programming skills, it's to teach computer science. The difference is explained quite thoroughly in the lectures. One might even say that answering the question "what is computer science?" is one of the core goals of the course and a major part of the philosophy of the professors who created the course.

The argument being made by the comparisons to geometry and astronomy is that in any discipline there is a difference between means and ends: what you are attempting to achieve is distinct from the tools you're using to achieve it. Furthermore, it's a mistake to believe that the discipline is all about the tools. No, the tools are the means, not the end.

replies(1): >>42162046 #
2. PittleyDunkin ◴[17 Nov 24 04:52 UTC] No.42162046[source]▶
> The goal of the course is not to teach programming skills, it's to teach computer science.

Who cares what the goal is? It teaches programming skills too. The intent is irrelevant and for the most part so too is the distinction (outside the american education system, anyway).

> Furthermore, it's a mistake to believe that the discipline is all about the tools.

Who outside the american education gives a damn about "the discipline", if that refers to anything meaningful outside the american education system in the first place? It's arbitrary and has no purpose or benefit aside from organizing the education system. This is a course that miraculously, against all odds, manages to teach useful skills in addition to jargon patterns of thought. Why not celebrate this?

Anyway, programming is a useful pedagogical tool for teaching CS. CS is a useful pedagogical tool for teaching programming. To brag about not teaching one is just hobbling your own insight into the value you provide students.

I myself have a CS degree from a prestigious institution and largely enjoyed my education. But this attitude you alude to is just jerking off for the sake of jerking off. Particularly in the case of SICP.