> > My message does not contain the word “recursion.” No it doesn't. However, *Structure and Interpretation of the Computer Science Curriculum* does, as it does your criticism of SICP's use of (generative) recursion.
On Thursday, August 2, 2018 at 10:16:26 AM UTC-4, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > > > On Aug 2, 2018, at 9:27 AM, Scott <scott....@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > > Thank you. I am not technically sufficient to add much to your response. > Will the core curriculum become available online? > > > I am not sure what you mean by “online” here, but the course numbers are > spelled out in Northeastern’s online catalogue, and the essay (linked to my > last email) spells out the rationale. If you mean the materials, yes, we > work with on-line materials (see my home page for a starting point). > > > > Your criticism of SICP's use of recursion seems to extend to the method > for teaching recursion principles in The Little Schemer series, in that it > does just that - teaches principles of (a form of) recursion as an > intellectual exercise without translating it into actual program design > methods. > > > My message does not contain the word “recursion.” This would be the least > of my criticisms of SiCP. Please do read the article that I pointed you to, > I don’t want to type it into an email. (The Little Lisper contains the > seeds of HtDP, which is why I became a co-author, but it took another 10 > years for me to figure out how to turns this into a design recipe, i.e., a > matrix of process and data/problem complexity.) > > > > My own experience with The Little Schemer began to falter in Chapter 5. > I felt I understood how recursion worked and how to create simple recursive > functions and wondered if, by stalling in Chapter 5, I demonstrated a lack > of drive or intellectual ability necessary to learn how to program well. > After reading some of your articles I am discovering that perhaps neither > of my tentative conclusions were necessarily accurate. > > > TLL/TLS is definitely an exercise in “train yourself to think thoroughly” > and with a method that is good for some people and, well, not so good for > others. Just like any text book. I’d consider it “intellectual pleasure” > more than anything else. And intellectual pleasure isn’t for everyone. I > read Politics and Republic for pleasure and someone else may read romance > and crime stories. > > > > Your other criticisms mirror my (no doubt common) experiences: on one > hand there are the massive online courses and endless textbooks which tend > to amount to nothing more than intros to syntax how-tos and seem to be just > a form of data entry. (and now I think perhaps I understand why: syntax > without API is just keyboarding and hitting enter. But that is what these > courses are about so I completely get the point of the prologue!) Then on > the other hand are the curriculum which, like MIT, have me thinking that > programming well requires an engineering degree, at least, or is just a > subset of engineering. Such has been my experience. > > > Programming comes in many flavors, just like construction jobs: > > — build a shed in the backyard (you don’t need to be an engineer, though > you should know some basics; and most people buy pre-fabs that are planned > and made by people with tons of experience ~= degree) > — build a house (you can do so if you have build many of them) > — build a skyscraper (try to do so without an engineering degree) > — build an airport > . . . > > You may think of analogues such as throw-away script, “web site”, single > application, POS system, etc. > > Now here comes the kicker. Unlike a shed, a web site or a script can grow > into a valuable piece of software. And all of a sudden, this software > becomes not just valuable but also extremely expensive to maintain because > you never paid attention to its construction. It falls over every so often, > and you need to stabilize it. It has cracks in the foundation, and you need > to rip out the living room floor to pour new foundation pillars so it > doesn’t sink into the swamp. And so on. > > Depending on what you wish to accomplish, your milage of studying may vary > — Matthias > > > p.s. And then there is the pure joy of acquiring a skill properly .. just > to have fun. Guy Steele, for example, works on wood for his hobby. My uncle > was a wood carver, too, and I bet that Guy over the years has acquired the > same set of skills and better ones. See Little Lisper. > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
