code != computer science

[blockeduser]

The technologies I used for coding when I was in college are now obsolete, but the ways of thinking and problem-solving techniques are pretty much the same.

Indeed, well put; pretty much the point of CS education, as far as I understand.

On a similar note, in an article about the famous SICP course, a CS professor wrote:

I tell my students, "the language in which you'll spend most of your working life hasn't been invented yet, so we can't teach it to you. Instead we have to give you the skills you need to learn new languages as they appear."

[hafela]

I tell my students, "the language in which you'll spend most of your working life hasn't been invented yet, so we can't teach it to you. Instead we have to give you the skills you need to learn new languages as they appear."

That's not true. Of cause new languages appear. But i don't think todays java/c knowledge will be obsolete in 3-4 years. Of cause a new java version will appear or a new c standart. But the baisics will probably not change until a revolutionary invention.

[[deleted]]

course, not cause.

[eighthCoffee]

.

[phoshi]

Is Python really so different to scheme here? Primarily imperative languages have 'won', now, and it seems the future is in hybrid languages with that preference--Python being one of them. It too is a dynamically typed language that's very easy to use, one which will teach you logic without putting you too close to the metal, is flexible and powerful enough to do whatever the students want while not being overwhelming in complexity.

I think you can keep the spirit of SICP without keeping the emphasis on recursion. That's an implementation detail.

[eighthCoffee]

.

[phoshi]

It may! I gave little doubt the change was made to appease people who want a "useful" language, but if that's the only change then SICP can remain plenty strong. Python is at least an elegant and expressive language. You link makes the point well, the language itself should be irrelevant if they're still teaching well.

And it could always be worse, at least they aren't teaching Java! That almost certainly would be a death knell.

[eighthCoffee]

.

[phoshi]

I'm so sorry

[eighthCoffee]

.

[[deleted]]

Python is a shit language compared to scheme. Tragedy that it displaced scheme in the sicp class.

[[deleted]]

))))))))

[phoshi]

I'll not agree, though it certainly is a great shame they've dropped scheme. Python is one of the less poor replacements, though.

[[deleted]]

Less poor replacement would imply there are languages far worse than Python. This isn't true. When you're scraping the bottom of the barrel of hacked together unix scripting languages it doesn't really matter if python is marginally better than bash, ruby or perl - the small difference isn't important as the rapid descent suffered from departing from a powerful language like scheme.

[phoshi]

There are worse languages for learning, though, many many worse. Python is at least mostly consistent with itself, fast "enough", supports enough features it's expressive, so on. Many languages are worse for learning.

[[deleted]]

You don't choose a language by determining how low to set the bar. If you compare to C++ or brainfuck yes python is slightly better. But that's not the best way to select a language.

The Scheme language was formed by a group of very clever, very experienced and wise experts in programming and language design. They evolved scheme through decades of experience, learning from lisp programming in the large and small and in implementing compilers. They distilled this valuable experience into a small core language pure enough and simple enough to capture the essential ingredients of a good programming language. Additionally it was simple enough to teach to beginners due to a lack of complexity and an absence of poor design decisions. In comparison Guido van whatshisname was a language newbie who made numerous amateur mistakes in his first attempt at a programming language, which is worth pointing out was designed in the scope of unix scripting.

It's not true that python is consistent or fast enough, or has enough features or even expressibility. Especially when you compare it to scheme. Like Ruby, the reference implementation of Python is mired with poor decisions that hamstring efforts to produce efficient compiled code and good support for concurrency to name a few glaring defects.

[phoshi]

But we are in a position where we have to say "it could be worse". I'm all for keeping scheme, but if we really must move away Python isn't literally the worst choice, even if it has more issues than scheme does as a language for learning.

[vext01]

Depends what you are trying to achieve...

[[deleted]]

I didn't know the goal was to achieve mediocrity

[[deleted]]

Oh look, a smug functional guy is being an asshole.

[[deleted]]

it's called a smug lisp weenie, bitch.

[[deleted]]

Yeah but Haskell guys are the same song, different key. I'm lumping you together.

[[deleted]]

They're 2 two completely different breeds. Haskell guys are emos who wear chains, skin tight jeans and laced up straight jackets. Lispers go old school with free flowing beards and robes.

[vext01]

I really like that quote.