Top
Best
New

Posted by gjvc 17 hours ago

Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs Video Lectures (1986)(ocw.mit.edu)
282 points | 39 comments
ozten 17 minutes ago|
I worked through these videos and the full book. Via news groups I organized an in-person study group. What a blast and a big unlock for me. The study group started having attrition about halfway through the book.
neilv 14 hours ago||
If you want to work through SICP, you can use MIT Scheme, but another option is to use Racket or DrRacket, with this add-on package: https://docs.racket-lang.org/sicp-manual/
vincent-manis 3 minutes ago||
I second the recommmendation, with some caveats. First, MIT Scheme has not been made to run on Apple Silicon, though with a few tricks, the amd64 version can work (this will presumably go away once Apple takes away Rosetta2). Racket might therefore be a better choice.

It is possible to use pretty much any decent Scheme system with SICP, but the language has changed since even the Second Edition, so I don't recommend it. That said, once you are working on your own projects, nothing stops you from using a different system, even though you might have to RTFM to see modern equivalents to ancient idioms.

functionmouse 4 hours ago|||
I think we should only be recommending MIT Scheme. Everything else has got too much going on and can become distracting, for the purposes of education.
brudgers 10 hours ago|||
MIT Scheme is the simplest thing that might work.
SilentM68 11 hours ago||
Awesome!

I was just about to ask just that question?

Thank you, SM

sanmarzano 1 hour ago||
Every programmer should learn LISP. or at least give an earnest attempt to study it. The vast majority of applied programmers only know how to think like C programmers (procedural). LISP is a “beautiful” language in that it is about concepts, not hardware. Totally changed my brain when I worked on a graduate project for a few years at my Alma mater in 1990.
dirteater_ 12 hours ago||
I tried SICP straight from the book once, but I think the lectures are much better and the book acts as a supplemental reference.
easytiger 10 hours ago||
That is indeed how University learning used to work, for about 1000 years
epolanski 8 hours ago||
It's *supposed* to work.

In reality you get lectures from individuals that became professors because they are great at politics/research but not at teaching (very different skill).

If you even get them and not their 25 year old assistants.

And this is apparently super common even in ivy league universities as Youtube lessons have shown me over and over.

nobleach 5 hours ago|||
This is why it's so awesome watching David Malan teach Harvard CS50 (free YouTube videos). His presence, knowledge and overall enthusiasm for the topic are outstanding. If more of my college courses had that level, I'd have been far more engaged. When I look back, I realize that I paid a TON of money to have some professors basically "phone it in", yet expect me to basically teach myself their subject of expertise. "Build a compiler". Yes, I can (and did) learn that from a book. I imagine if I had someone truly engaging the room during those sessions, I'd have come away with FAR more appreciation. That could have even led to a different career path.
dahart 2 hours ago||||
All that, and it’s still better than just reading the book on your own. :P

Be thankful when you get the 25 year old PhD students & post-docs. They care more about teaching and remember learning the material recently and are more willing to talk & help you.

epolanski 2 hours ago||
I've attended courses from some of the best researchers on the planet (like Graetzel at EPFL) and you did yourself a favor if you skipped the confused ramblings and just studied on the books.

Plenty of courses taught by brilliant individuals that were just bad at teaching or borderline not prepared.

Some courses (like biochemistry) were effectively useless as de facto you had to memorize 600 pages of Lehninger's book anyway. There's nothing to understand in the Krebs cycle.

I also vividly remember exams like advanced algebra were the professor genuinely did nothing but rewrite canned content on a board and could not really shed light on anything, you were on your own.

alpinisme 4 hours ago||||
> And this is apparently super common even in ivy league universities as Youtube lessons have shown me over and over.

I think you have the “even” backwards. Elite research first universities have this problem more than teaching-first, low research output programs.

aag 6 hours ago|||
Sussman and Abelson are great at teaching.
epolanski 6 hours ago||
I'm sure they are, just against the generalization that in class is always strictly necessary as not everyone is Sussman.
barrenko 12 hours ago||
Thank you! Will try it like this.
j_m_b 5 hours ago||
This is how I learned lisp. I then went on to learn Clojure and built a career around it.
davidpapermill 1 hour ago|
Fantastic. How did you learn Clojure? I'm a bit of a fan.
xqb64 5 hours ago||
What could someone interested in systems programming gain from this?
convolvatron 3 hours ago|
these talks distill out the core questions of topics like mutability and state management and abstraction. almost uniquely so. so I consider them deeply relevant to systems programming in as much that its primarily concerned with..state management and abstraction.

unless you mean 'systems programming' as just 'the crap one does to try to glue together all the grotty pre-existing systems' and 'developing a good sense of taste about 3rd party libraries', in which case no, its not really very relevant.

although even here there is insight, I watched a video of Sussman describing why they were putting down SICP and demanding that MIT develop new introductory courses. he was so graceful and considered, putting his polished jewels away. the time when we could reasonably be expected to see across and through all the layers of abstraction was over.

convolvatron 2 hours ago|||
addendum: actually I think the case for SICP in systems programming is stronger than that. There are several places in the material where the gap between 'high level programming' and 'construction of machines using gates' is thoroughly walked through and evaporated. maybe some of of the other similar treatments for logic programming and continuous analysis won't strike as deep, but that part should really be required reading.
selimthegrim 2 hours ago||
All of the lectures? I did SICP as a freshman in 2005 but not all of it and have never watched these lectures save for the one where Abelson wears a fez and jokes about Kabbalah at the beginning.
convolvatron 1 hour ago||
sorry, I meant for a systems programmer the parts where there is a kind of dual correspondence developed between statements in a language and transistors on a board I think would probably open some mental doors for a systems programmer.

but I haven't gone through the video lectures or even all of SICP. but those that I did have had a lasting impact. particularly the erasure of the declarative/procedural dichotomy..thats been a very useful tool

bloppe 12 hours ago||
Cannot recommend these enough. Watch the first one and you'll be hooked
boobsbr 6 hours ago||
The audio is so bad on these lectures.

Is there any way to clean them up?

mbrezu 12 hours ago||
These sound a little better than I remember. I wonder if the sound was cleaned up?
Aejkatappaja 8 hours ago|
I always recommend these lectures, awesome!
More comments...