←back to thread

389 points kurinikku | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.221s | 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 In contrast are books with a CD in the back with an outdated Java compiler you will never be able to setup.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 #
lupire ◴[] No.42165549[source]
You are comparing mathematicians to programmers.

A more fair comparison is engineering or applied math major, not pure math at MIT.

replies(1): >>42166802 #
1. liontwist ◴[] No.42166802[source]
I dont think so. SICP isn’t abstract algebra, it’s just unlikely to be the exact syntax you will use at your job.

Engineers rarely do laplace transforms by hand either.

The book is written for 1st year stem undergrads at MIT. So maybe 2nd or 3rd year at state school.