> ...if you think that I didn't read it thoroughly enough, just come out and say so...
OK. I don't think you read it thoroughly enough. I wouldn't usually just come out and tell someone that, because it's likely to start a fight, and that won't help anybody. But, since you asked...
The post repeatedly makes the point that SICP primarily presents a language-agnostic approach to understanding how to solve problems in programming. The author even explains that they aren't objecting so much to Python specifically as they are to the fact that there isn't an SICP-type book which happens to include Python for its code examples. The author does make the claim that Python requires more focus on syntax than Scheme does, and exemplifies this with the "and-or trick", but that's not really central to their argument.
Their main argument is that programming should be taught as an approach to problem-solving, not as an introduction to a language, and that by removing SICP from the curricula, future programmers will lose some valuable skills.
OK. I don't think you read it thoroughly enough. I wouldn't usually just come out and tell someone that, because it's likely to start a fight, and that won't help anybody. But, since you asked...
The post repeatedly makes the point that SICP primarily presents a language-agnostic approach to understanding how to solve problems in programming. The author even explains that they aren't objecting so much to Python specifically as they are to the fact that there isn't an SICP-type book which happens to include Python for its code examples. The author does make the claim that Python requires more focus on syntax than Scheme does, and exemplifies this with the "and-or trick", but that's not really central to their argument.
Their main argument is that programming should be taught as an approach to problem-solving, not as an introduction to a language, and that by removing SICP from the curricula, future programmers will lose some valuable skills.
And I happen to agree with that.