Have you read you read your...

CTM?

CTM Template Metaprogramming

CTM Troll Magazine

>>2
>>3
Is that even relevant to the thread or just your way of saying, "I've not read Concepts Techniques and Models of computer programming"?

CTM Techniques and Models.

>>5
Concepts Techniques and Models Techniques and Models?

CTM's not Techniques and Models

read this book you fucking faggots

Why does SICP have so many fuggin errors?

example:

(define (sum term a next b)
  (if (> a b)
      0
      (+ (term a)
         (sum term (next a) next b))))

(define (<name> a b)
  (if (> a b)
      0
      (+ (<term> a)
         (<name> (<next> a) b))))

It is apparent the last line of each one is different

next b?

Holy grail of shit

>>9  here

seriously I'm reading this book out of all of your recommendations and in the fucking book is an example of an infinite loop for what should be a general summation template.

THIS BOOK IS FAIL  (Unless it is on purpose for some reason)

>>10
It is there to test you.

>>10
It is used to separate the code monkeys and those on the road to satori.

>>10
Can you read the errata or are you blind?

Page 45, line -13:   Exponent should be n/2, not b/2

Page 112, line 2 of exercise 2.30:   Square-LIST should be square-TREE. ("That is, square-tree should behave as follows:")

Page 118, lines 1-2:   Should say "...the product OF THE SQUARES of the odd integers..."

Page 176, before procedures rectangular? and polar?:   Should say "rectangular and polar numbers, respectively"

Page 181, line -5:   Should not refer to exercise 3.24, just to section 3.3.3.

Page 185, exercise 2.73a:   Should ask about VARIABLE?, not SAME-VARIABLE?

Pages 246 and 247, figures 3.7 and 3.8:   There is an extra ')' at the end of the code.

Page 287, figure 3.28:   Rightmost box should have +, not *

Page 324, exercise 3.50:   Should refer to section 2.2.1, not 2.2.3.

Page 341, line 3 of exercise 3.66:   Should say "For example, APPROXIMATELY how many pairs..."

Page 375, line 1 of exercise 4.7:   Last LET should be LET* ("...bindings of the let* variables...")



Obviously blind

shut up faggots
this thread is about CTM which is more advanced than SICP

>>15
Or what? You're going to cry?

>>16
no I'll continue to whine

>>17
And to think I was going to offer you a shoulder to cry on... Bah!

>>10
HAVE YOU PATCHED YOUR SICP TODAY?

>>14
Page 287, figure 3.28:   Rightmost box should have +, not *
I found that mistake myself.

>>20
This may surprise me, but you invented that mistake.

>>21
FUCK I wanted to add ''In fact, I invented it``.

Stop posting your SICP worm pics in /g/. It's not technology.

>>23
SICP worm
Uh-oh, am I being trolled?

>>23
Back to fa/g/, please

I just checked /g/ for the first time and I'm glad that it was the first time. These guys are talking about basic programming to sound cool (HURRRR HOW DO I CUDDER IN PYTHON?).

Everyone knows that you have to talk about expert programming to be cool.

>>27
Everyone knows that you don't have to try being cool when asking for basic advice.

>>28
Clearly not everyone

Why does SICP have so many fuggin errors?

example:

(define (sum term a next b)
  (if (> a b)
      0
      (+ (term a)
         (sum term (next a) next b))))

(define (<name> a b)
  (if (> a b)
      0
      (+ (<term> a)
         (<name> (<next> a) b))))

I figured out why I thought it was wrong

It is actually correct

since the next in front of B is a parameter not a function

damn you functional programming

Are you GAY?
Are you a NIGGER?
Are you a GAY NIGGER?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
 All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy