←back to thread

389 points kurinikku | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.209s | source
Show context
richrichie ◴[] No.42164857[source]
Has anyone read the new SICP with Javascript as language of choice?
replies(3): >>42165037 #>>42165082 #>>42165465 #
0xpgm ◴[] No.42165082[source]
Isn't scheme with close to zero syntax so easy to learn?

Why did someone think it was a good idea to switch to JavaScript?

I think the person who'll get value out of SICP will not have any problem picking up scheme syntax on the fly.

replies(5): >>42165182 #>>42165278 #>>42166724 #>>42168084 #>>42168675 #
liontwist ◴[] No.42165182[source]
I agree. Being self contained helps make it timeless. In contrast are books with a CD in the back with an outdated Java compiler you will never be able to setup. And then you have to migrate the snippets yourself.

If you study any other related field like math or physics you become accustomed to learning a formal system for the context of a particular problem.

CS students tend to have this weird careerist view where every page just directly help them get a job.

replies(2): >>42165303 #>>42165549 #
SoftTalker ◴[] No.42165303[source]
Most undergrad CS students want a practical/engineering curriculum. They are not really there for theory, but for a long time that's how CS departments operated, unless maybe you were at an engineering school.

Schools are so desperate to keep up enrollment numbers today that many have capitulated and are giving students what they want instead of what the faculty thinks they need.

replies(4): >>42165476 #>>42165761 #>>42165848 #>>42166858 #
1. JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B ◴[] No.42165848[source]
> They are not really there for theory

Is that why they are so bad at adapting to foreign languages and frameworks? Maybe they should go back to the basics.