/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7509776]

Is this book actually worth reading?
Or is it just a meme?

[Anonymous No.7509797]

It's a meme and it is a good book but only after you mastered the basics. It's not a good book to start with. It's better to start with something like python for computer scientists, or something similar.

[Anonymous No.7509802]

>>7509776
It's a great book, and it's for first semster MIT students. So don't listen to >>7509797

[Anonymous No.7509803]

>>7509797
It is meant as an introduction to programming for people who have little or no programming experince though.

[Anonymous No.7509820]

I think one should point out that a "do python first" recommendation comes from the perspective of eventually or doing something for someone else, learning programming to go on earn money coding.
SICP is functional and there is a point in starting it first. Of course, a smith producing tools will refrain from learning to paint and spend his days fuck around - I'd say there's no right or wrong to both sides.

[Anonymous No.7509827]

>>7509820

I did Java in high school as a first survey and it was pretty meh. My next experience was mathematica and I had glimpses of Java flashbacks and it helped me a bit.

I got interested in more formal programming and tried picking up a C++ text but it seemed like a mess. I'm picking up python and am very active with it and I am liking it very much

[Anonymous No.7509829]

It's an excellent introductory programming book.

People find it difficult because it expects you to think rather than just follow cookbooks.

[Anonymous No.7509833]

what sort of approach is best to go through this book?
I have already installed "sicp picture language" on DrRacket
should I start by watching the lectures or should I go through the book and look at the lectures when I'm stuck?

[Anonymous No.7509845]

>>7509797
so wrong.
This book IS the basics. This is for an INTRO to computer science course. Watch the videos along with the book, it's for someone without experience. It's not that difficult to follow along with.

The idea is that you have very little syntax to learn by using LISP, so after the first chatper and lecture, you know the entire language, and can get right into data structures and algorithms.

[Anonymous No.7509850]

>>7509820
I don't know why you write this in response to me.

also, from java to Mathematica is funny, those are as far apart as you can get.
Btw. none of the languages you mention is anything like lisp/functional.

[Anonymous No.7509851]

>>7509833
download MIT scheme for this course.

[Anonymous No.7509857]

>>7509827
I don't know why you write this in response to me.

also, from java to Mathematica is funny, those are as far apart as you can get.
Btw. none of the languages you mention is anything like lisp/functional.

[Anonymous No.7509867]

Where can I buy this book for $10?

And is there any difference between the 1985 (1st edition) and 1996 (2nd edition)

[Anonymous No.7509870]

>>7509857

Yes they are very very different. I replied to you because you were discussing Python as a foundational language.

[Anonymous No.7509882]

>>7509851
am I the only one who can't load gnu.org now?

[Anonymous No.7509887]

>>7509882
http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/gnu.org.html

[Anonymous No.7509892]

>>7509887
isitdown tells me its up, but I have tried firefox, chrome, internet explorer, microsoft edge and nothing is happening. every other website works just fine

[Anonymous No.7509904]

>>7509867
>Where can I buy this book for $10?
probably nowhere,
https://mitpress.mit.edu/index.php?q=books/structure-and-interpretation-computer-programs
unless you go full /g/ and buy it used

[Anonymous No.7509941]

>>7509867
This image very true in the sense, that without an overmotivated mindset it's difficult to learn anything on your own. It's not impossible, but it takes me MUCH more time to learn without deadlines.

[Anonymous No.7509957]

realistically, for someone who barely knows any programming except for some matlab he learned in school, how long should it take me to thoroughly go through SICP without skipping anything?

[Anonymous No.7509975]

>worth reading
>meme

as if the two were mutually exclusive, fucking moron

[Anonymous No.7510164]

>>7509941
>overmotivated mindset
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXsQAXx_ao0

[Anonymous No.7510177]

>>7509776
It's an introductory computer science book. It's one of the best of such books. But in the end it is just introductory.

If you can't use data-driven design, can't reason about pure functions and stateful functions, have never written your own machine emulator, interpreter, or compiler, then it's just the book for you.

[Anonymous No.7510181]

>>7509820
>SICP is functional
confirmed for not even having watched the videos, nevermind reading the book

[Anonymous No.7510188]

How about the so called Dragon book? Worth reading for CompSci student teaching themselves?

[Anonymous No.7510261]

>>7509802
Except that it's retarded to start with a functional programming language. Object oriented is the modern way to do things and it is much more intuitive than functional. Of course, after you learn OOP then you can start doing functional stuff and apply that to improve your code. It's ok if you disagree tohugh you're probably an autistic retard just like the mit kids who will read this book in first year.

[Anonymous No.7510272]

>>7510261
>Except that it's retarded to start with a functional programming language.
Just read the book. It's so painfully obvious to anyone that has read it that when people say stuff like this, they haven't read it.

There's literally no need to force your OOP meme or show your ass when the book is free, course materials are free, scheme is free.

[Anonymous No.7510288]

>>7510272
just because it is free doesn't make it good, you don't say anything to prove your point. I told you mine already: oop is more intuitive than functional and the way you write code in languages like python, java, c , is much easier for beginners than some mess of parentheses.

[Anonymous No.7510295]

>>7510288
>you don't say anything to prove your point
My only point is that you're retarded. Extremely early on they introduce stateful programming because scheme is not a pure functional language.

Scheme also has closures so the utility of an object system is very low in an introductory class.

I am 100% certain you know very little about scheme or SICP. You've only forced your OOP meme like some seppleskid or javadesi

[Anonymous No.7510302]

when he actually turns into a wizard, i flipped my shit

[Anonymous No.7510377]

>>7510295
whatever, keep programming in a language only 0.00001% of people will ever use. You're just like those stupid compsci morons who think haskell and erlang are going to be the next big shit.

big spoiler: it's not going to happen because there's too much shit done in c/c++/java/c#, no one will drop these languages anymore it's just too wasteful.

[Anonymous No.7510388]

>>7510377
It's fascinating how lackadaisical you are about being dead fucking wrong.

[Anonymous No.7510412]

>>7510377
I work at one of the largest tech companies in the world and we use lisp variants all over the place for a variety of systems.

Facebook uses Haskell for their spam detection engine.

I could go on, but I won't.
get rekt kid

[Anonymous No.7510420]

>>7509845
>it's for someone without experience.

Were the Hewlett-Packard employees non-programmers?

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-001-structure-and-interpretation-of-computer-programs-spring-2005/video-lectures/

[Anonymous No.7510428]

>>7509867
I guess it'll cost about $10 to print it

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book.html

[Anonymous No.7510434]

The literal only bad thing about SICP is that Scheme is a pain in the fucking ass to get running on modern Windows.

[Anonymous No.7510436]

>>7510377
>whatever, keep programming in a language only 0.00001% of people will ever use.
Once you learn one programming language, you've learned the basic reasoning and expression skills necessary for all languages. The rest is just syntax, which is what we have search engines for.

SICP is good because it gives you those basic reasoning skills in a thorough, skillful manner without skimping on the concepts that become important at high levels.

[Anonymous No.7510443]

>>7510434
really? I don't remember having any problems.

I ended up working through sickpee with racket. A few quirks compared to the MIT scheme but nothing too troubling.

[Anonymous No.7510446]

>>7510443
It wouldn't even start for me until I did some searching and manually adjusted the stack size that you start the interpreter with.

Might have been a weird 64bit issue?

[Anonymous No.7510457]

>>7510446
huh, I never had this problem, I use racket all the time for work, even on embedded systems with 512mb of ram

[Anonymous No.7510472]

>>7510457
oh i meant specifically MIT Scheme

[Anonymous No.7510701]

>>7509776
it is only worth trying to understand it for you if you want to be redpilled on programming

if you are not ready just go back to your linux console and continue writing that php app

[Anonymous No.7511197]

>>7510472
Oh, yeah, I really don't like emacs so the interface turned me off immediately.

[Anonymous No.7512869]

>download MIT Scheme
>an hour later I still haven't figured out how to make it run my code
Better go back to racket like a fucking idiot