The lambda calculus is a big thing in computer science.

SICP authors were not the originators of Lambda Calc. Even a noob like me knows that!

What's intellectually dishonest about it?

Based on: WOOD, A. (2001). Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, 2nd Ed by Abelson and Sussman, with Sussman, MIT Press, 1996, ISBN 0-262-51087-1, 657pp. Journal of Functional Programming, 11(2), 253–262. doi:10.1017/s0956796801223983:

"The new material on concurrency is rather a disappointment since such a large and fundamental topic is relegated to little more than a convenient link item between lists and streams.

...

The major omission, and it is major, is that types are never fully, or even adequately discussed."

There's more.

The entire instruction of Scheme in 6.001 was less than an hour. You only need a tiny bit and then you can focus on the concepts in the book rather than quirks of some programming language's syntax. I think that is a huge win. On what basis do you find it "intellectually dishonest"?

Based on: Forbus, K. D. (1985). Structure and interpretation of computer programs. Artificial Intelligence, 27(1), 124–127. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(85)90087:

"several important topics that students should be exposed to early are treated lightly, if at all. Its coverage of fundamental algorithms is spotty - sorting, for instance, is not discussed at all.

Another problem inherent in this pedagogical approach is that it does not teach students many of the engineering skills necessary for developing efficient programs on 'real' computers. This can lead to a 'clean fingernails' syndrome. where the student feels no program should be written or used unless it is utterly clean."

This is just one. I can't find the paper but Philip Wadler was the original person saying the exact phrase 'intellectually dishonest'.

I think you should judge SICP on what the authors' own intentions were, not on things they weren't trying to do. I didn't get the feeling that cleanness was emphasized or encouraged (any more than in any class). There are other classes that cover fundamental algorithms like sorting, SICP isn't about that.

You might find the authors own critique of SICP interesting:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34657535

So what WERE they trying to do?

BTW, here is a list of people who had criticized SICP. The list is full of heavy-weights:

    Philip Wadler
    Donald Knuth
    Eric Raymond
    Richard Bird
    Paul Graham
    Guy Steele
    Robert Harper
    Matthias Felleisen
    Daniel Friedman
    Christopher Strachey
    Peter Landin
    John Backus

> This is just one. I can't find the paper but Philip Wadler was the original person saying the exact phrase 'intellectually dishonest'.

https://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.... - that's the only Wadler critique of SICP I'm familiar with. Is "intellectually dishonest" in there? I can't find it. In fact, he seems rather positive about the book and it's material, just not Scheme. His critique is focused on the differences between Scheme and Miranda and their applicability to teaching students.

I would think it obvious, but maybe not, that attributing your own critique to a more well-known and respected individual without citation is intellectually dishonest.

As I said, I am pretty sure I remember seeing that phrase by Wadler but can't find the paper now. However, even in your link, Wadler says:

-"SICP is a brilliant book, but it is also a dangerous one. It is dangerous because it teaches students to scheme instead of to calculate."

- "SICP is a book about Scheme, not about programming."

- "SICP's emphasis on the 'scheming' approach to programming is a mistake."

- "SICP does not adequately teach the fundamentals of programming."

Is that what you call intellectually honest?

I call it a disagreement, there are many of these kinds of disagreements especially in pedagogy. Sometimes people use strong and charged language in disagreements. It is not "intellectually dishonest" (quoting you, not Wadler since you still can't back that attribution) to write a book using Scheme just because others think Miranda (at the time, or another language today) would have been a better language. It would only have been intellectually dishonest if they knowingly chose Scheme to create an inferior experience (to what purpose?).

And I still contend that you are an intellectually dishonest person until you can properly attribute that quote to Wadler, or concede that you were wrong and made a false claim.

The criticism in my previous comment backed by a valid and searchable source: "SICP does not adequately teach the fundamentals of programming." is huuge for a book claiming to the best in the field. It's not a matter of 'pedagogical disagreement'. What do you say in this regard?

Yes, unfortunately I can't find the paper and I even enlisted GPT4 to help me search, so it is possible that some other reviewer may have said that (and I may have read another review by Wadler before or after this review); So while Wadler may not have said that, he has plenty of beef with SICP in the paper in your comment which essentially boils down to implying intellectual dishonesty. If not, then you need to improve your reading comprehension.

I understand that you may have invested a lot of time and effort in SICP and my assessment of it hurt your fragile ego, hence the attack on my intellectual integrity, but regardless of whether Wadler said THAT particular phrase or not, the implication of his complaints amounts to almost the same thing. If you are intellectually honest, you should accept sunk costs and admit that you were mistaken in wasting so much time in SICP where better alternatives have existed for decades.

Also, a note on downvotes: the agreement of majority (shown via upvotes) is no guaranteed standard for quality or veracity of a comment/opinion and I couldn't care less about the "karma points"; my comments are fueled by intellectual integrity and curiosity, and that inevitably means some people might disagree with me. Just because you disagree does not mean I am wrong and you are right.