[plt-scheme] A Couple of Questions on DrScheme/Mzscheme

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sun Sep 29 08:27:55 EDT 2002

Well, let me put it this way. I think that 6.170 basically ignores 001
and starts from scratch. That's a bad indictment :-) 

At Sat, 28 Sep 2002 13:51:48 -0400, "Mike Lin" wrote:
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> > Don't get me wrong .. SICP is a wonderful book and it can be
> > the basis of a wonderful course, but SICP cannot possibly be
> > the basis of a good introductory course if programming and
> > program design are the goal. MIT students become decent programmers
> > despite this course, not because it. Places with similar students
> > have the same experience -- and admit it if they have the courage
> > to analyze what's going on.
> I think that MIT's 6.001 is most valuable to those students who already have
> fairly comprehensive intuition about program design, as it introduces them
> to a broad set of many topics in computer science: algorithmic complexity,
> streams, functional programming, operational interpreters, register
> machines, compilation, and even a little theory (halting problem, Y
> combinator); to a student who didn't have to struggle with the basics, there
> are only a handful of CS courses (s)he can go on to take as an MIT
> undergraduate without some familiarity with the material thanks to 6.001.
> Having recently taken the course and tutored others in it, however, I'll
> definitely agree that the course materials assume too much, even of the MIT
> student, for someone who hasn't had significant experience in program
> design. That said, it is a large subset of those taking 6.001 who have had
> significant experience in program design, and who have the most to gain from
> it.
> -- Mike --

Posted on the users mailing list.