Sussman exactly said what I said. He quit because engineering changed, the course was no longer relevant.

Perhaps the words are too harsh. But is there any other way to build something more complex then you can understand? Using pre-existing libraries is the only way.

Additionally if you tried to say build a triple A game without using any libraries would that not be a fools errand?

He says "although still important intellectually, it was no longer relevant to the kinds of things people needed." What people? The students? Working programmers? Companies? The university administration? Notice how he tells the anecdote about quitting "I suppose Hal and I basically walked into the department head's office sometime in the end of 97 and said, 'We quit. On this. Okay? Figure out what to do'.", and then the department couldn't figure out what to do.

The story here isn't that a course that had been the same for over a decade was out-of-date, the story is that the organization didn't know where to go from there, they still don't know, and the people that were originally passionate about teaching the class were of retirement age, and both the profs and the textbook were retired from the class at the same time. If you want to read more into it than that, then we're reading the tealeaves of university administration decisions that not even the people making them are often in a position to understand.

How do you know that building something more complex than you can understand is necessary, or is a good idea? Feynman said "What I cannot create, I do not understand," which seems like a better approach to me.

I recently ran across Jonathan Blow's effort to create a new programming language, because he noticed that C++ is bloated to the point of buing unfit for purpose, and supposed that he could do better, despite being just one person (or perhaps, because of that). As I understand it, he's interested in working on games with the engine that he's writing in his new language. So the jury is still out on that fool's errand. Of course, he's still using the standard libraries provided by the OS, and he is after all writing an engine (and not just a standalone game) so your point stands.

Bro, let's say the world embraced FP and it was the dominant paradigm and the techniques and patterns of SICP were taught in EVERY computer science curriculum.

The change Sussman described that happened in engineering WILL STILL occur. He stated it didn't just happen with programming. It happened across the entire stack from the hardware all the way to software. What happens in this parallel universe? Most people won't spend the majority of there time using the techniques they learned in SICP.. instead they'll be trying to figure out how to get all these arcane libraries to work.

>How do you know that building something more complex than you can understand is necessary, or is a good idea? Feynman said "What I cannot create, I do not understand," which seems like a better approach to me.

How is what Feynman said a technique? He stated a fact about himself. If he can't create it, he can't understand it. So I'm pretty sure Feynman doesn't fully understand how an airplane works because he's never created one. This is not a technique this is fact. That being said, pilots ALSO don't understand how airplanes work. But that doesn't mean pilots can't use an airplane; in the same way I can use a library.

>I recently ran across Jonathan Blow's effort to create a new programming language, because he noticed that C++ is bloated to the point of buing unfit for purpose, and supposed that he could do better, despite being just one person (or perhaps, because of that). As I understand it, he's interested in working on games with the engine that he's writing in his new language. So the jury is still out on that fool's errand. Of course, he's still using the standard libraries provided by the OS, and he is after all writing an engine (and not just a standalone game) so your point stands.

It's a bit of a fools errand depending on how you look at it. If he had a boss, and was working for a company he'd be fucked because it'd take too long. Let's be real... he's more doing that for fun. If your goal was to fly an airplane, do you start off by building one? The only type of person who would do this is someone who does it as a sort of "fun" project.

We all know C++ is a gigantic piece of garbage and we all can sort of visualize the better way in our imagination, but it doesn't change the fact it is still the most practical choice for many applications.

First of all, pilots absolutely do know how airplanes work, and they make you study the aerodynamics and pass a course before you get your first hour of flight time, even as a student going up.

Feynman understood how airplanes work better than I understand how the internet works, and that's reasonably well.

The way it's a technique: first understand it, then you can try to create it.

Did Feynman understand commercial jets well enough to build one from scratch? Certainly not. But if dropped off by time machine a decade before the Wright brothers, could he have saved everyone some time and gotten something off the ground, given similar resources? Yes.

When pilots don't understand how airplanes work, you get MCAS, and we can all agree that can't be allowed to happen again (and was not entirely the pilot's fault, as they were lied to about the systems, in the service of getting one by the regulator).

Rust was good for Graydon Hoare, as he got his ideas about safety out into the world. Later he burned out. Mozilla is one of the champions of mismanagement and squandering of every kind of technical and non-technical opportunity, and somehow the Rust juggernaut became its own thing that's quite extraordinary and hard to characterize. I'm sure there are a lot of stories there. As to the people choosing Rust today for non-systems programming work, because of fashion, that doesn't seem to be good for anyone, but opinions obviously differ there as well.

>First of all, pilots absolutely do know how airplanes work, and they make you study the aerodynamics and pass a course before you get your first hour of flight time, even as a student going up.

But they can't build an airplane. This follows Your quote from Feynman.

>Feynman understood how airplanes work better than I understand how the internet works, and that's reasonably well.

Feynman can't build an airplane. Again you quoted him Admitting that if he can't build it, he doesn't know how it works.

>The way it's a technique: first understand it, then you can try to create it.

Except No pilot ever uses this technique. They fly a plane, but they mostly never build one.

>Did Feynman understand commercial jets well enough to build one from scratch? Certainly not. But if dropped off by time machine a decade before the Wright brothers, could he have saved everyone some time and gotten something off the ground, given similar resources? Yes.

What does this have to do with anything? Basically the point is the logic you following from that quote doesn't apply. A pilot CAN know how a plane works, so can Feynman, AND they both don't have to build one to know. The whole point of the plane and pilot thing is to show you the flawed logic.

>When pilots don't understand how airplanes work, you get MCAS, and we can all agree that can't be allowed to happen again (and was not entirely the pilot's fault, as they were lied to about the systems, in the service of getting one by the regulator).

They don't have to build an airplane to know about MCAS do they? That's the point here. They don't even have to know how to program. That is essentially what MCAS is: a program. Instead pilots deal with an abstraction. They have a very rough idea of how it works. Sort of like how programmers deal with libraries, but they don't have to build the libraries from scratch.

>Rust was good for Graydon Hoare, as he got his ideas about safety out into the world. Later he burned out. Mozilla is one of the champions of mismanagement and squandering of every kind of technical and non-technical opportunity, and somehow the Rust juggernaut became its own thing that's quite extraordinary and hard to characterize. I'm sure there are a lot of stories there. As to the people choosing Rust today for non-systems programming work, because of fashion, that doesn't seem to be good for anyone, but opinions obviously differ there as well.

Good for the community. Epic business mistake. A fools errand for Mozilla who basically conducted a charity for the community.

>As to the people choosing Rust today for non-systems programming work

Performance is a metric worth going after even if you're not directing calling any system calls. Honestly it's not even that hard or far away from a non-systems programming language.

Conducting a charity for the community is Mozilla's mission, so that part worked out. How good it will be for the community remains to be seen, at least it is probably replacing C++ on a lot of new projects.

Nobody's saying you have to build an airplane to know how it works, the point is you have to know how it works to either build it, or fly it effectively. You won't know why it stalls if you don't know what makes it stay up.

The point of the time travel story is that Feynman understands it to the level that would let him recreate the technology from scratch in a society without powered heavier-than-air flight, not that he can compete, John Henry-like, with a Boeing assembly line. That's a good enough level of "can create" to reasonably say you understand something. Nobody outside of Boeing has the built-up engineering expertise to replicate their assembly line, and any equally advanced design would have to be evolved forward over many years.

The problem with MCAS is that the abstraction combined with a lack of specific awareness of the issue made it unclear to the pilots what was going on exactly, or what that meant. Abstraction isn't the problem, but abstraction that masks relevant parts of what's going on (like how many distinct sensors are going into a reading) has to be treated with appropriate respect.

There's probably a million lines of code in your self driving car today. You might think knowing high school physics help you become a better driver, but you're delusional if you think you know how your modern car works.

I certainly do not own or want a self-driving car, at least not until they work!

High school physics certainly does help you understand momentum, which is the cause of all crashes.

Majority of drivers don't need to understand physics to drive. It doesn't help.

Instead humans rely on visual intuition, which everyone has with or without learning physics.

Mozilla's mission wasn't to conduct charity to the point of self annihilation which is what would've occured had they not spun off the rust division. Non-profits cannot sustain themselves without positive cash flow. Just look at Ikea, they're a non-profit.

>Nobody's saying you have to build an airplane to know how it works, the point is you have to know how it works to either build it, or fly it effectively. You won't know why it stalls if you don't know what makes it stay up.

You said it. You quoted Feynman saying it. So if you didn't mean that then you made a mistake here. Ok the. I agree with the rest of your post then.

However my main point still stands the systems we build as humans are too complex for a single person to understand. In order to deal with this complexity most of programming involves investigating and testing libraries that abstract away this complexity. It is more.important to know this then it is to construct highly modular fp style code.

It depends what you want to do. If you want to work on problems that we know how to solve and that we have solved many times, then the npm xenobiology skill set is sufficient; if you want to do things we haven't done and don't know how to do, it isn't. I've acquired knowledge by poking at libraries and databases and OSes, and those are sunk costs. Apart from the instrumental value at the time, most such knowledge has had no lasting or further use to me. I've acquired other knowledge and skills from books including SICP, and those have continued to pay lifelong dividends with compounding interest over decades.

Domain knowledge can shift but not always. npm and javascript are around to stay. Same with most of the linux API.

It is true that the fundamentals that SICP teaches will be around forever, but the fact of the matter is, if I'm an employer I'd rather hire a specialist in some arbitrary ephemeral domain relevant to my business then to hire someone who is a generalist.

You're in good company, that's an extremely popular perspective. Those of use who are more generalist often have to find our own ways. The rewards are usually worth it.

>The point of the time travel story is that Feynman understands it to the level that would let him recreate the technology from scratch in a society without powered heavier-than-air flight, not that he can compete

see my remark above

Planes flying along with siphons are bad example to ask theoretical physicists - most of them wouldn't be able to give you the right answers. Feynman was closer than most because he did think about things like what would happen if a rotating sprinkler sucked in water, etc.

All you need is very rudimentary fluid mechanics, some vague idea of attack angle, and the conservation of momentum with a compressed column of air under the plane. I think most theoretical physicists could come up with that.

The siphon one is funny because many people will start with air pressure, which is wrong.

Yes, first and second year undergrads when I taught intro labs and diff eq.

My understanding is there is a rather tortuous explanation involving viscosity (for lift and wing shape)

Like DOOM?