But wait, their’s more! What has changed in the last 30+ years is that computer science is now also a social science, and probably a statistical one. Maybe they will fix that in a decade or too :).
Who of you had posted that?
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-11 3:21
So, a committee (here, Prof. the Sussman peaked his hands over his head, which I interpreted to indicated pointy-headedness)
>>9
That article gives me the feeling that it's for practical reasons i.e. to teach how to do day-to-day (boring) programming with a buggy library.
(And, of course, M.I.T. does teach classic software engineering, later in the curriculum.)
See? They want to teach basic and practical stuff first and leave the best bits for later.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-11 16:18
Great SICP, reveal to us the will of Sussman, so that we may blindly obey!
Free us from thought and responsibility!
We shall read things off you!
Then do them!
Your words guide us!
We're dumb!
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-11 20:14
SICP is still the best.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-11 20:15
this 'science of programming' bullshit is utter trash. I know programming isn't science, it's closer to mathematics, but it's still different from that.
>>22
I would have taken this troll more seriously if the author of said troll had used proper English.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-11 21:22
>>4
I'm curious to know what university this is. Since MIT is being shortsighted and gave up on SICP, I might as well look to a different university for SICP related study.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-11 21:24
>>24
Well, you're certainly one to talk about proper English.
As pure as scheme is it's horribly out dated for today's cs courses. Even the Sussman said it himself. Learning scheme won't be nearly as useful as learning another more useful language in today's world, whether you like it or not.
ah fuck ihbt
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-11 21:44
>>27
Now let me first just say that I have been trolled by replying. Second, that is complete bullshit, because even lectures from the 1960's are still relevant today. MIT are just being a bunch of pansies by pandering to the "Heh, people out there are shitty programmers with shitty programs with shitty (or non-existent) manual pages, so let's just give up teaching a class that has been taught for over a quarter-century and replace it with ENTERPRISE QUALITY bullshit, because the industry no longer cares about educating people properly anymore."
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-11 22:50
ITT: Basement dwelling losers think they know better than MIT professors.
>>33
How about this for a rebuke: SICP is 25 years old, and the comp. sci. community can't possibly be collectively unoriginal enough not to have improved on it in that time.
Name one other science that still uses 25 year old textbooks on a regular basis.
>>42
Sometimes, I wish our troll scale went into the negatives.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 2:33
I don't care what any dissenters say in this thread. Read SICP has always been the /prog/ mantra, and always will be. If you can't accept that, then I kindly ask that you go back to /pr/.
>>47
Only rarely, and only in advanced, specialized subjects that were essentially perfected long ago, so no new developments have been made since. Typically there aren't enough qualified authors *or* students of the subject to make writing new textbooks profitable. For instance, Hartshorne is still considered the standard reference for beginning algebraic geometry, even though it's 30 years old. But this isn't because Hartshorne was some staggering genius and wrote "The" algebraic geometry book. He just wrote a very good book at a time when deveelopment of the material covered was over, and noone has felt the need to bother with anything different.
On the other hand, I am totally sure that 99.9% of textbooks used in undergrad or beginning grad courses were published in the last 5 years. I'll bet your calc book was published the year before you used it, even though the actual math contained in it is centuries old. Noone would argue today that students should learn calculus from Newton's or Leibniz' or Cauchy's original works, even though these men were 20 times the geniuses that Sussman is.
>>49
I think that you are seriously overestimating the amount of development in computer science over the past 20 years if you think that SICP has no place. If we compare it to the development in hardware, it's going at a snails pace.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 5:58
>>49 these men were 20 times the geniuses that Sussman is.
0/10
Applied Engineering is purely dependent on its subsequent Science.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 9:10
>>52,23
You're both faggots. Also SICP will always be an awesome read. Fuck this new Python shite! Real programmers produce code that runs close to the metal.
>>8,25,46
There is a page on the SICP site that is 10 years old: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/adopt-list.html
Whether or not SICP is a fundamental part of the course, however, I don't know. For example, Oxford's CS course is all Haskell rather than Scheme last I checked, so they may not use SICP anymore.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 16:39
>>58
My university wasn't on there ;_; I'm not taking CS either, but that's not the point
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 16:55
>>58
Cambridge is not on there, I have to reconsider my choice.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 18:49
ITT: Basement dwelling losers think they know better than MIT professors. Unless your name is listed on that magical purple book, you have no authority in this matter.
>>61
by your own definition, you have no authority in this matter. Let the trolling continue
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 19:31
>>61
I borrow my authority from the Gerald Sussman, the Harold Ableson with the Julie Sussman. If the real authority say SICP is outdated, then I can also assert correction over these basement dwelling losers that think they know better.
>>61 Implying that authority is an objective concept.
Well, it was a nice try. It's been done before and you didn't really go out of your way to add value to your troll. I'm going to have to go with 0/10.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 20:42
>>64
As the person who first developed the "X/10" troll rating system back in 2001 on fuckedcompany, I hereby demand that you and all other fags on this board cease and desist fagging it up with your ignorance.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 20:51
>>65
Actually, I invented it in 1999 on Slashdot. 7/10 for the effort though.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 20:53
>>64
Hey, don't take it up with me. Take it up with Gerald Sussman and Harold Ableson as I borrowed my authority on SICP from them.
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 20:58
>>66
Actually, I invented it together with my ANSI C compiler when I was 12. 4/10 for the effort though
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-12 21:39
I actually started using N/10, for N in [0,10], back in 2007. You can even ask Xarn to check this for you, if you don't believe me. My name is James.
°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨ From USA
ø„¸ S I C P ....... „ø¤º°¨
ø¤º°¨ RoCKs!!!! ``°º¤ø„ Fan
¸„ø¤º°¨¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¨°º¤FOR EVER
Name:
Anonymous2009-05-14 16:03
While none of our courses use SICP directly any longer (functional programming having switched to CLISP), the book is referenced as recommended reading in a surprising number of them.
Probably because most people don't know even the basic shit that it covers.
>>78
That's LINF, and I'm sure >>75,77-sama realizes that.
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-12 7:24
the the face driver's face driver Temple Temple Floyd 242 id end fortune getContents I I anyway. by know very 1) int } e24() once Sussman wired Sussman days days are
Name:
Anonymous2009-07-13 16:08
>>78
>LISP is not functional.
LISP is multi-paradigm. One of that paradigms is functional programming. Therefore your statement is false.
Q.E.D.