"Perhaps in time the applications-first approach will spark a revolution as profound as the one that followed SICP, but it hasn't happened yet."
Put the way he's written described it, "a curriculum organized around applications", I don't think it will. You have it right: too many trees, not enough forest.
Does anyone who has taken the new MIT curriculum have any comments?
Sorry, but what "profound revolution" followed SICP?
It was a mighty fine course and text-book. But where's the revolution?
Where are the guys that were taught SICP that went on to do "revolutionary" things?
And if they do exist, how do they compare to a control group that just learned with UNIX/C/C++ and the like?
(Downvotes? I thought we're taking compute SCIENCE here. Where's the science and the proof? If one didn't know any better he would have thought I was stoned for insulting some holy scripture...)
> Downvotes? I thought we're taking compute SCIENCE here.
From SICP:
'Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that "computer science" is not a science and that its significance has little to do with computers.'
(Don't know about the downvotes or anything. Just thought that was like vaguely funny.)
"Perhaps in time the applications-first approach will spark a revolution as profound as the one that followed SICP, but it hasn't happened yet."
Put the way he's written described it, "a curriculum organized around applications", I don't think it will. You have it right: too many trees, not enough forest.
Does anyone who has taken the new MIT curriculum have any comments?