>>26
If you reread my post, you'd realize I was commenting on K&R being dense (newbies often underestimate it because of its size, and then get upset when they don't master it in a weekend).
But since we're talking about SICP, what you failed to point out is that the text right above those exercises explains what most of those things mean (and
>>1 can either skip the ones that aren't explained, or go learn proof techniques and whatnot at some point and then do them).
The comment about Python had nothing to do with the language specifically; the idea was if
>>1 started having trouble getting through SICP (as newbies often do), they could pick some material that's easier to boost their ability to reason about code in general (and their confidence), and then dive back in.
Finally, if SICP is too hard, and you think learning Python is evil, why not just recommend something like the Little Schemer? Do you think a newbie who can't design "graduate level mathematics algorithms" (unless Discrete Mathematics and the odd sprinkling of calculus is suddenly a graduate-level subject, I don't see anything in SICP that couldn't be learned on one's own. like, without a graduate-level mathematics education) is going to feel more inclined to pour over a language reference? I know K&R is a language reference, but then again I wasn't assuming that
>>1 was entirely lazy and stupid from the start.
My
entire point was to help the original poster learn about Computer Science and programming, not to learn a particular language. Scheme, C and Python just happen to be good vehicles for doing this. I'd rather challenge them by setting the bar high, rather than undermining from the start by having them take the easy way out.