The translation is pretty direct, so the data structures are more idiomatic to Scheme than they are to JavaScript. I think that's OK.
I do wonder if it wouldn't be simpler to write a Scheme interpreter in JS (or take one of the undoubtedly existing ones) and make the book interactive with that.
This version feels more like something that has added value if you already know JS, not so much when you're learning JS
Totally agreed, which I think is a strength of SICP. I know historically it was for learning computer science, but I've gotten so much out of reading it, despite not being a newcomer to the field.
The point is that givens some fictional language called “Blub” for the sake of the essay, some programmers believe that their language has everything that could possibly be useful, productive, expressive, &c.
But PG’s contention that languages exist on a continuum of power (a gross oversimplification), and when a programmer believes that their “Blub” is as powerful as possible, they have closed their mind to more powerful/useful/expressive ideas.
But that’s as true of Scheme as it is of JS: If someone believes that LISP was the zenith of programming, and everything else since then has just been wankery, if they think we have nothing to learn from Haskell, or Julia, or Joy... Then for them, Scheme is Blub.
Blub is a mindset, not a language. Sure, some communities might be infested with Blub programmers, but nevertheless, languages themselves are not Blub.
Now, if someone says that SICP in JS proves that Scheme is no better than JS, well... That person has a Blub mindset. But teaching some of the same principles as SICP using JS is not in and of itself the Blub mindset.
Summary:
Blub is a mindset, not a language.
All languages are Blub languages if someone has the Blub mindset.
SICP in JS in-and-of-itself is not Blub.
JS in-and-of-itself is not Blub.
Which essay is that? I'd be interested in reading it.
People talk up their language until they learn lisp then this happens: https://www.draketo.de/proj/py2guile/
I think it's good to offer a version of SICP adapted to a language that's used today very prominently and is relevant to many current jobs in the industry.
The fact that this is a book about learning to program, not about maximizing your potential for jobs. It's a compsci book to learn to be a good programmer, not a book about synergizing industry trends to build your resume.
When SICP was written, most people still wrote in Assembly for most things but COBOL, ADA, and old-school FORTRAN were also popular. Part of the longevity of the book is its appropriate choice of language.
Would it be as enlightening to write a series of JS compilers in JS? Or are they writing Lisp compilers in JS? Doesn't that miss the entire point of the book?
Scheme (in contrast to Java etc) is special because of its very easy syntax and how it is evaluated. Since SICP is about syntax/structure and its evaluation/interpretation you should really stick to lisp.
> I think it's good to offer a version of SICP adapted to a language that's used today very prominently and is relevant to many current jobs in the industry.
I don't. Maybe this Javascript-Version is also a great book, but if you don't know scheme/lisp and wonder why scheme is a better choice for SICP I encourage you to read the original.
The Feynman Lectures uses an example of a screw jack with 10 threads per inch, and a 20" lever. Should we update this to a name brand screw jack with 8 or 16 threads per inch, and an 18" breaker bar, because those are common in industry today?
Be sure to extend the introduction of that chapter to include a history of this particular screw jack company, and who currently holds the trademark, and all the major companies that make screw jacks today, and typical uses of jacks, and how they're constructed [1].
SICP is not about learning any particular language, it is about learning concepts which will make you understand JavaScript much better than anyone who only knows JavaScript.
If having to learn a new language like Scheme is an impediment to starting SICP, then you will not get past the first chapter anyway.
I'm just imagining someone taking the text of Crockford's talks on Javascript, removing all his clear description of the language features, and replacing it with highly opinionated non-technical terms of derision like this.
Though not instructive, it would be really fun to read.
And I write JS for a living.
although I don't necessarily agree that JavaScript is so minimal anymore.
- Wikipedia
Do you mean modern PHP? "The source code of the Viaweb editor was probably about 20-25% macros." So are you suggesting they should have started work by extending PHP with Lisp's macro system? Or just worked an order-of-magnitude faster to make up for not having one?
Or do you mean the actual PHP that was available when they started Viaweb? It's hard to imagine how Personal Home Page Tools 1.0 (not even called a 'programming language' at the time) would have been at all a reasonable alternative to ANSI Common Lisp. It was a few C files that could do basic variable substitution and output HTML tags to stdout. It couldn't do loops or if-statements, much less access files or databases.
and what does it matter anyway? the concepts are the same.
TIL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-crom...
[0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=adaption%2Cada...
Is Javascript the new pseudocode? Honestly I'd rather be forced to learn a new language to understand a book than to read the book adapted to JS.
I think most of the comments below are entirely missing the point & thinking of this as JS hatred. Its more about...cultural degradation...Pedestrianization. sicp was holy grail. you looked up to it, you cherished it, it was something few people have partaken of & it was nice that way. then gradually that got diluted over time. berkeley did the python3 gig & that itself was icky but now this is a whole new low. sicp in js ?! jesus. what next ? are we going to sicp in qbasic ? why not a sicp do-over in Visual Basic so all them fogey 90s microsoft-for-life developers! developers! developers! on win95 code up COM DLL interpreters in Notepad++ ? where does the madness end ?
sicp & scheme. buttons & bows. mac & cheese. bread & butter. things that go together.
Now, sicp & js is...is..what is it ? mustard & jam ?
you know what would be real cool ? sicp in J !!! Now that's a marriage made in heaven. if i was a rich vc i would happily fork over a million for a sicp in J effort. the apl family has so much to offer! now that i recall, there was actually an effort called aprol http://www.cs.trinity.edu/~jhowland/aprol.paper.pdf
Anyway, how did you like the Pacino remake of Pippi Longstocking?
If people who would otherwise not enjoy any of the insights to be gained from SICP do get into it through this version, great.
It adds zero value to any discussion. It's nothing more than a desperate attempt to gain some internet points.
It's a popular language and it has flaws, but that doesn't automatically make it worthy of the amount of hate it receives here. This type of discussion has more in common with /r/iamverysmart than it does with valuable discourse that HN used to be known for.
When an intriguing movie - or book - comes out, it's often intriguing because it's quite different. When you convert it to a common language - or Hollywood - it becomes less different. Reading "Working With Legacy Code" forced me to absorb some C#, but it also allowed me an opportunity to compare it with Java, which I learned at university.
What I understand from this is that people didn't really value Python as a pseudocode language. It was just fashionable at the time. Now it's Javascript's time. I wonder what's going to be next? Golang has a chance.
Though I acknowledge its immense utility, I feel like JS always tends to go for "good enough" solutions rather than "best in class" solutions. That is its own kind of quality, but there's good reason to dislike JS for people who focus on those particular qualities in a language.
Imagine this kind of comment for any other language, C, Python, Ruby, Rust, Scheme whatever. It would be downvoted to death. And yet people still make & upvote these comments about JS despite JS being the most popular language, run on the most devices & having a massive community of people fixing its warts and modernizing JS.
There are still valid critiques of JS but they have nothing to do with Al Pacino or Bruce Willis. Please spare us, or if you want to criticize Javascript, learn something about Javascript in 2019 & criticize that.
nitpick: I personally prefer to use intermediate variables instead of nested function calls and ternary operator.
Everything is comprised of something.
Please, if you compose something many people could potentionally consume, at least dont be all esoteric and/or mystical about it. This is not a campfire, where everyone tells a story of fairies and shit. They maybe even more so eager to learn a typical umderlying layer/architecture.
