Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Why is this group so obsessed with SICP?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-27 23:16

We get it. It's arguably the best intro to programming text, but it's an intro to programming text. Do you think that MIT, Stanford and Berkeley CS students jerk off to SICP for four years? They don't. They master it their first semester and they move the fuck on. They write C libraries in assembly. They write assembly compilers in C. They write virtual machines and interpreters. They hack kernels. They play with electricity. Mentioning SICP in every post doesn't make you look like REAL PROGRAMMER. It makes you look like a high school student.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-27 23:22

If they still require schooling after SICP, then they did not master it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-27 23:29

>>2
Oh right, [b][i]EXPERT PROGRAMMERS[/b][/i] master it, drop out of school, start some shitty social networking startup, make billions of dollars and then talk about SICP on /prog/ all day.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-27 23:44

>>2

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-27 23:57

>>2
>>4
So are you guys Microsoft Certified yet?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-27 23:58

>>5
I am GNU/Emacs certified. I love RMS. GNU is GOD

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 0:00

>>6
GNU is not GOD, it's Unix

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 0:14

have you even read SICP? I have.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 0:15

>>3
yup

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 1:57

>>2
Spoken like a true codemonkey. That's cool though, people like tend to think of IT as a pretty sweet gig.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:01

assembly compilers in C
wat

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:09

>>11
SICP didn't teach you that ASM is a compiled language? Gee, it should have. Guess you didn't master it.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:18

>>1
They write C libraries in assembly. They write assembly compilers in C. They write virtual machines and interpreters.
It's hard. Very hard. To write compiler in C.
Even more hard is to write a virtual machine, as you'll have to implement optimizing JIT-compiler.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:20

Most "assemblers" are in fact compilers without optimizations, which merely translate to absolute memory offsets

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:22

>>14
Still hard to do them in C, cuz it has no list-processing capabilities.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:34

>>13
It's not hard to write an assembly compiler in C. I did it freshman year. That was easy. The hard part was writing a CPU in logisim to run the resulting binary. That was just tedious.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:39

>>15
Yeah, I guess writing an assembly compiler would be extra difficult if you think assembly is Scheme.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:45

>>16
It's not hard to write an assembly compiler in C. I did it freshman year. That was easy.
It took you a whole fucking year, what Lispers do in a few evenings.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 2:58

>>18
Who said it took a whole year? That was just one course. The compiler and the CPU were each worth 1/8th the grade. It wasn't a big deal.

And you're assuming we don't use LISP. We do, but this was a machine structures course. There's more to CS than software, you know.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 4:43

I once tried to write a fibonacci calculator in a language that didn't have list-processing capabilities, and BOY WAS THAT A MISTAKE

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 5:12

>>20

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
  int i, j;
  for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
    int n = atoi(argv[i]);
    if (n < 0) {
      printf("fib(%d) is undefined.\n", n);
    }
    unsigned long int fm = 0;
    unsigned long int fn = n == 0 ? 0 : 1;
    for (j = 0; j < n; j++) {
      unsigned long int tmp = fn + fm;
      fm = fn;
      fn = tmp;
    }
    printf("fib(%d) = %lu\n", n, fn);
  }
  return 0;
}


Problem?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 5:41

>>21
PIG DISGUSTING

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 7:14

>>20
Oh, don't remind me, I once tried write a factorial evaluator in a language with no list processing capabilities, and MAN DID IT END UP MESSY

>>21
Yeah,
anonix$ ./a.out HAX MY ANUS
0

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 13:53

>>20
>>23
>fibonacci calculator
>factorial evaluator
>trying to make babby's first recursive functions sound like full-fledged applications.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 13:53

>>23
You must have over-engineered it.

int r=1; for(int i=n;i>0;i--) r*=i;

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 14:10

>>1

Because most people here can't program. Which is easier: waving a book around and insisting that reading/owning said book makes you skilled, or writing code to prove that you're a good programmer?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 15:13

>>24
You calculate Fibonacci numbers recursively? That's terrible!

Also, back to the imageboards, please.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 15:35

>>27
You think that calling Fibonacci a recursive function which it is by definition implies that I'd use recursive function calls to calculate it on a computer? That's horrible!

Back to high school mathematics, please.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 16:24

>>27-28
get the fuck out, faggots

Name: moot !Ep8pui8Vw2 2011-06-28 16:33

ANGER

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:11

>>23
f(int n){int r=1;for(;n>1;n--)r*=n;return r;}//WHEREISYOURGODNOW?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:26

>>1
intro to programming
It's an intro to CS, not programming.
Mentioning C and assembly doesn't make you credible, using ``C'' and ``compiler'' in the same sentence will make you look like a complete idiot.

0/10, see me after class.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:36

assembly compiler
Everything one needs to completely disregard everything you said as horseshit since you have no idea what a compiler does in the first place.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:37

>>32
[quote]The GNU Compiler Collection includes front ends for C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, Ada, and Go, as well as libraries for these languages (libstdc++, libgcj,...).[/quote]
- http://gcc.gnu.org/

Wow, is that idiotic or what?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:41

>>33
>he thinks that assembly code is machine code

Better read more SICP.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:43

>>34
Writing C and C++ compilers is a known act of masochism.
Writing compilers in C or C++ is idiotic.
Writing C/C++ compilers in C/C++ is idiotic and masochistic.

Yet, you failed to point out that GCC is written in C: it provides a C frontend, so what?

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:43

>>35
Assembly is assembled, not compiled.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:45

>>35
better eat a dick

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:45

>>36
>Writing compilers in C or C++ is idiotic.

In C++, yes. In C, nope.

Name: Anonymous 2011-06-28 17:47

It's not my problem if you cannot differentiate between a compiler and an assembler.

So do you like bananas or ice cream chimp?

Learn to quote properly also.

Newer Posts
Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List