Talk:Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- The Little Schemer (and it's forerunner The Little LISPer) has it's own style and wasn't inspired by SICP's style, at least not in the same way the other books mentioned were. Chiok 17:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
With Julie Sussman?
Why the phrase "with Julie Sussman"? Is she regarded a contributor, rather than a full coauthor? Qwertyus 21:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Well, she's not listed as an author on the textbook, but she is an author on the teacher's supplement. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Is not listed where? On the book  it says "Harold Abelson and Gerald Jay Sussman with Julie Sussman" and in the Library of Congress Online Catalog MARC tags the main author field is "Abelson, Harold." and there are additional fields for both "Sussman, Gerald Jay." and "Sussman, Julie." --TuukkaH 17:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Funny: Sussman's other book, Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics, is written by Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom, with Meinhard E. Mayer. Qwertyus 19:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- The ideas and the general structure of the book came from the course developed by Hal and Gerry, who are professors at MIT. Julie, who is both a computer programmer and a professional writer, edited the book and made quite significant contributions to its ultimate content, in addition to writing the Instructor's Manual. Briankharvey (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Structure and interpretation of computer programs.jpg
Image:Structure and interpretation of computer programs.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I'd like to suggest redirecting "SICP" here by default. "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" is a much more popular expansion of "SICP" than "St. Ignatius College Prep". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. It should at least be on the disambiguation page. I tried searching for this page just typing SCIP on the search bar and not finding the link to my surprise PuercoPop (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Done, as of this edit (SICP), note added in this edit (Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs).
- —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
SICP is noted for assuming a high level of mathematical knowledge (e.g. "The Structure and Interpretation of the Computer Science Curriculum") as would be appropriate for an MIT engineering student but not for an average reader or US college freshman. What were the prerequisites for 6.001? Is it worth noting this in the article? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- 6.001 was a freshman course with no prerequisites. (Of course, MIT does have freshman year requirements, so in practice most took calculus in high school, and the others took it at the same time as 001.) At Berkeley, during the dot-com bubble we actually enforced what was always listed as a prerequisite: programming experience that includes recursion. Students with no prior experience took another (also Scheme-based) course before the SICP course. Briankharvey (talk) 07:01, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add a picture?
The home page of SICP says the book is licensed under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported, but the second page of the HTML version of the book says it's licensed under the CC BY-NC 3.0 Unported. So what's the real license of the book? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)