←back to thread

Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python (2009)

(www.wisdomandwonder.com)
284 points borski | 4 comments | 25 Jul 25 16:38 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
MontyCarloHall ◴[25 Jul 25 17:23 UTC] No.44685710[source]▶
Isn't this just part of the broader trend of CS departments switching away from teaching computer science to teaching computer engineering, which in turn is part of the more general trend of colleges becoming more vocational?

LISP dialects like Scheme are excellent for teaching pure computer science because they are the closest thing to executing lambda calculus expressions. Whereas Python is excellent for teaching applied computer engineering, because it's essentially executable pseudocode for imperative languages, and imperative languages are the most common language a computer engineer encounters in the real world.

replies(18): >>44685819 #>>44685842 #>>44685939 #>>44686019 #>>44686088 #>>44686154 #>>44686222 #>>44686308 #>>44686321 #>>44686533 #>>44686596 #>>44686808 #>>44687195 #>>44687197 #>>44688209 #>>44688239 #>>44688473 #>>44688736 #
NewsaHackO ◴[25 Jul 25 17:32 UTC] No.44685842[source]▶
Executable pseudocode is an oxymoron.
replies(2): >>44685906 #>>44685979 #
unethical_ban ◴[25 Jul 25 17:44 UTC] No.44685979[source]▶
"essentially", come now.

The point is that python's syntax reads a lot more plainly and logically for learning than something like Java.

replies(1): >>44686842 #
1. NewsaHackO ◴[25 Jul 25 18:52 UTC] No.44686842[source]▶
I am confused, what is the relevance of the word essentially?
replies(1): >>44687123 #
2. unethical_ban ◴[25 Jul 25 19:12 UTC] No.44687123[source]▶
Do you agree or disagree that Python is more readable/closer to pseudocode than say Java or C++? Less syntactic sugar, no need to define namespaces/classes, more intuitive for declarations, etc.
replies(1): >>44688480 #
3. NewsaHackO ◴[25 Jul 25 21:07 UTC] No.44688480[source]▶
Would you consider essentially dry water to be semantically correct phrase?
replies(1): >>44688771 #
4. unethical_ban ◴[25 Jul 25 21:36 UTC] No.44688771{3}[source]▶
I understood the meaning of their phrase and explained it. You assert that the original phrase is incomprehensible and meaningless. We see things differently.