Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This is an interesting post in its way, but I hate how it's presented. The subject doesn't really call for this impersonation of academic rigor, since it's fundamentally an unscientific, subjective exercise - "How long did I, one particular computer scientist, take to work through this massive and occasionally open-ended task?" That's asking for an introspective essay, not a battery of tables and graphs.

But I think this is a useful critique of SICP, for those trying to teach from it or in particular for those trying to self-study it: it wasn't really designed to be done front-to-back (contrary to the nonsensical justifications given here); it's not a realistic demand of any student, or even necessarily a particularly productive use of their time unless they intended to move into compiler development. Its problem sets occasionally give the illusion that SICP itself will teach you what you need to solve these incredibly difficult problems and perform these incredible accomplishments, which is partially what's responsible for its legendary status. Not recognizing that - and it'd be hard to blame a solo learner for that - can be incredibly discouraging when one finds that they can't do things with the tools SICP has given and blame themselves for not appreciating those tools rather than SICP for asking too much and giving too little.



https://lockywolf.net/2020-10-29_scheme-story.html

Here he shows 2 reviews he gave up on, that he resorted to data because he didn't know how to put it in words.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: