Why are all the practice problems post-algebra mathematics? Is that the joke?
>>108909476The joke is that you chose a clown profession
>>108909476SICP is overrated garbage. There are dozens better ways to teach yourself CS fundamentals and none of them use this approach. The only reason of why it's a famous book is because it's from a MIT course which was nonetheless replaced as soon as Sussman et all stopped being relevant. Do not waste your time with this meme book. Learn math, statistics and basic programming principles. In this epoch you don't want to become a code monkey.
>>108909476There is no "joke". >>108909626True.>>108909629Moronic pajeet.
>>108909629I'm well beyond the fundamentals of CS. I was just flipping through it this morning and thought it curious how much of a focus on continuous mathematics it had for the practice problems.
the problem with functional programming is that it's an abstraction of mathematics, not computers. if you want to learn the latter, don't bother with this.
>>108909905only in the sense that logic is considered a subfield of mathematics.SICP was literally created for retarded engineers who can't handle abstract domains. it also has nothing to do with functional programming, but that's neither here nor there.
>>108909938>it also has nothing to do with functional programmingThe first two chapters alone use functional programming exclusively.
>>108909476it's because 1. it's a MIT course where the students were expected to have done calculus 1 already.2. data structures are only introduced starting the second chapter. the first part is about procedural abstraction and abstracting "computation".The Berkeley course is less math oriented. >>108909905sicp is not about functional programming, there is even a part where the authors explain how programming can't be "functional".>>108909629>it's from a MIT courseit was also the entry course at berkeley, caltech, and three dozens more.>>108909629>CS fundamentalsAlgorithmics are the fundamental of computing, sicp is not about that but about abstraction techniques. https://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~bh/sicp.html
>>108909629>SICP is overrated garbagecringe take of a jquery web dev janny. to those who only ever update corpo spam all higher education is overrated.
>>108909629>The only reason of why it's a famous book is...Wrong. The only reason it's famous is because the cover has a lot of meme potential to make it look intellectual and imposing. So it gets shared a lot in memes, similar to the Loomis "Fun With a Pencil" book. It's all about symbols and memes. That's what determines popularity.
>>108911605cringe take of a 4chan fag who didn't even read the book and is just trying to fit in to a gay subculture TAOCP is superior in every way
test
>>108910522>there is even a part where the authors explain how programming can't be "functional".I thought that chapter was funny because it was proven so very wrong by Eugenio Moggi's monadic conjecture 4 years later.
>>108909476this question pops up a lot and there is always a lot of bullshit about it because you need to understand that almost no one has actually worked through that book in decades. especially in the /g/ lisp thread. most of the people who talk about it are lying. the actual answer, paraphrased from the author's themselves, is because when they taught the course the students they taught had all finished mit's first calculus paper. so it became an easy way to teach using examples that they knew everyone in the class was familiar with. that's it. working through this book by yourself is usually a waste of time, but for specific reasons. it's a university text book, written to used with specific course material and not as a stand alone text for dialectics. if you want that use norvigs paradigms in ai or whatever it's called. so that means that the authors of sicp expected you to get lost and then go talk to your lecturers or tutors or other students about it as you worked through the specific homework problems they set.if you still want to use it, chase down brian harvey's course from berkeley. all the material and lecturers are still online, including answers to homework etc. the typical solutions you find online are shit 90% of the time. i could post all the links but i only will if you ask, because i am sick of faggots in these threads who argue and cry and don't listen to a word i fucking say. it's all so tiresome. you can't really do this book quickly. it's faster to follow a cirriculum.
>>108909629>There are dozens better ways to teach yourself CS fundamentalsI disagree, adding that it's good for fundamentals but not for beginners.
>>108909476its shilled by a bunch of retards (/g/) that argue over the simplest basics. anything posted on here is a joke, never to be taken seriously, including some dinosaur book
>>108913745>I disagree, adding that it's good for fundamentals but not for beginners.it's fine for beginners, provided they're enrolled in a university where the tutors will bail their asses out when they get stuck. like, what it was intended for in the first place.
>>108913780I didn't need anything external when I went through it. The lecture and book were all I engaged with.
>>108913790>I didn't need anything external>The lectureso you did need something external then.
>>108913829No, I'm talking about the MIT lectures. Not anything external.
>>108912776it wasn't proven wrong
>>108913852>Not anything external.yeah anon the lectures are not in the book are they? they're literally part of the university course that i've been talking about. so you used material external to the book. which is how the book was designed to be used. as a textbook for a university course. which involves using other, non-book ('external') material. i'm assuming you're esl here.
>>108913873>part of the university course that i've been talking aboutPart of the university course that I've been talking about.I don't know which lectures or book you think I meant but I'm talking about SICP and the lectures with its authors.Asking another human for help is something external.Using only the provided materials of the course are not and I frankly don't care to hear your argument since it's nonsense in principle. Didn't read the rest.
>>108913880fuck off you retarded autist.
>>108913893>please respondI figured you were goading for attention.What can I help you with? Something frustrating you at home?
>>108913869it was and remains wrong to this day.
>>108915368not really. programming languages have semantics that maths don't have.
>>108909476That's because Computer Science, despite what modern webdevs might think, is an applied form of mathematics. Also don't listen to people here saying you need "muh lectures" to learn something from this book, everything you need is in there. University courses make their material based on what's in the textbook, they don't use it as supplemental material.
>>108916789The advent of monads in programming allowed for the expression of execution semantics in a pure mathematical way. That's why nobody shuts up about them. Mathematicians and programmers alike seriously underestimate how far we've come since the 1980s. The last 30 years of theory has been the most exciting it ever was, since Frege.
>>108909476It's a complete meme, and despite what the people posting "webdev jeet!" would want you to think, this type of garbage is the origin of every cancer of modern computing. We need less abstraction. Learn assembly.
>>108913735Can I hab links?
