Re:Ask HN: What language-agnostic programming books should I...
by pvg on Monday June 05, 2017 @11:15AM
(#14488174)
They're indications the book is also not 'language-agnostic', for all of its merits. The language is there for pedagogic purpose.
Re:Ask HN: What language-agnostic programming books should I...
by jerf on Monday June 05, 2017 @11:53AM
(#14488491)
I don't think a book is "not language agnostic" because two particular languages aren't very good at it. C's lack of closure support is unique among any language still in use, for a variety of reasons. Java... was Java. If you weren't there you may not remember or understand, but at the time OO was at its most dogmatic and either it was an object or it was not included. Anything you could do with a closure could be done with an anonymous inner class. (Which is, technically, true. But the amplification factor on the effort and the sheer quantity of text involved to do so in Java is astonishing.) You can hear some of the echos of this in the older Ruby rhetoric, though I haven't heard it in a while.
Any other general-purpose language you'd be inclined to pick up right now would be fine.
IIRC, you end up implementing a scheme, which you can do nearly in the language of your choice, then the book covers that language you are implementing.
Re:Ask HN: What language-agnostic programming books should I...
by pvg on Monday June 05, 2017 @11:59AM
(#14488554)
The book is not language agnostic because it's not language agnostic, mostly. The fact that many other languages are a poorer fit for what it's trying to teach is pretty much the definition of 'not language-agnostic'.
Re:Ask HN: What language-agnostic programming books should I...
by jerf on Monday June 05, 2017 @12:12PM
(#14488725)
I don't know what task could possibly exist for which there are not significantly better and worse languages. Even today's "list of practical projects that anyone can solve in any programming language" [1] I can see at a casual glance that any of them that are not simply trivial will have better and worse languages. A definition of "lanugage agnostic" that either covers no tasks, or covers only very trivial tasks, isn't very useful. (Although in the latter case one can attain some insight by pondering why only such trivial tasks might be considered "lanugage agnostic".)
Re:Ask HN: What language-agnostic programming books should I...
by pvg on Monday June 05, 2017 @01:02PM
(#14489176)
I'm not sure what any of these logical contortions have to do with SICP being 'language agnostic'. It isn't. The first section of the first chapter talks about why a Lisp dialect is used. This is the first figure.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/ch1-Z-G-1.gif
Etc.
Re:Ask HN: What language-agnostic programming books should I...
by jcadam on Monday June 05, 2017 @11:46AM
(#14488423)
The "Compiler Design" course at my university was the hardest CS course I've ever taken -- and it was generally taken your very last semester (and was infamous for being a common cause of many senior CS students not graduating on time).
Had it been optional, I would have been sorely tempted to skip it. But, taking it was probably good for me in the long run :)
I do not mean this as empty snark; it is something you can see across the board in programming language evolution. It is virtually impossible to propose a new general-purpose programming language today that does not have closure support, which is the biggest thing you're finding missing from C and Java to use the techniques in SICP. (It is not the only thing, but it is the biggest thing.) You'll note Java is going to bolt them on soon, or recently bolted them on, but it'll be another decade before Java is using them fluently either way.
I've often recommend SICP to self-taught programmers; it is not a complete substitute for a computer science education, but it is a concentrated dose of the stuff you're probably missing out on. Expect it to be the work of some months to work through it. However, in the end, a self-taught programmer who has also worked through SICP systematically and carefully is probably a better programmer than 80% of the modern computer science graduates nowadays. (If you want to avoid that fate, oh ye who are still in school, take the freaking compilers course at the very least. Do your peers complain that it is hard? Then maybe it is a good one.)