Harold AbelsonStructure and Interpretation of Computer Programs - 2nd Edition (MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science)

Inductive reasoning aims at simplifying functions just enough to make them general. Simple does NOT equal easy! When Functional Programming (and its predecessors-- combinatory logic (1925) and lambda calculus (1930)) were first invented, they were aimed at clarifying mathematical logic. This "holding variables constant" or binding or eliminating them for "pure" (mathematical) functions, has been extended to Functional Programming, initially to better understand what programming is in general, then to evaluate mathematical functions while avoiding some of the complicating factors (side effects) of imperative/procedural programming.Because of this, when you think of a function in imperative, you immediately think of variables, and such functions can very easily morph both at the algo/function f(x)-> g(x) level, and at the x (variable level) itself (data changing as you execute). In functional programming (the subject of this text), a function is, well, a MATH function! So, evolving from math, and consisting OF math, it would be a little surprising to criticize the fact that this IS A MATH BOOK. (Sorry, it is). On the other hand, holding those variables constant and looking directly at functional mappings (particularly recursion) can "AHA" us into seeing how computers and programming "really" work without the complications of heavy imperative morphs.After C# 3 and in some Perl, these tried and true oops also have some functional classes now, so we are moving toward a more hybrid world, making this book FAR from out of date, even though it is "temporally" older. As well, some of your favorite math, research and engineering programs (Maple, Mathematica and R, for example) have numerous functional features. The old FP standbys are, of course, Lisp, Scheme, Hope, Haskell, Clojure, Racket, Hope, Scala, F#, etc. which you probably think of more as "math" programs. But, hopefully not a surprise, SQL itself strives at far less mutable value structures than imperative, and thus tilts toward functional also.FP, to be very honest, WAS designed to teach and understand programming (at compile/interpret levels, not necessarily algorithms, computational complexity or even advanced data structures), not originally create useful programs! "R" and many others have proved that to be aiming low, and the newer FP books do of course get deeply into more recent data structures.Thus, the reason for so many negative reviews! This is NOT your usual "how to program" or even "what are programs" text-- it really is about linking mathematics and computer science at both high and deep levels. So, if you aren't really up on math (from basics like sets and real number mappings all the way up to Lie Algebras and tensors), you might get lost with this rare gem of a book. On the other hand, the pain of working through it will give you a perspective on computer science that will forever change your point of view. Even if you code all day like I do, you'll LOVE taking this journey both to the 30,000 foot level, as well as down to the real action between compiling and interpreting-- via the MATHEMATICS of "pure" functions, minus the confusion of changing states, variables and data we play with every day in the imperative version of functions. Don't believe that this "simplification" makes things easier to get-- unless you know functions from a deep math view, this will be a tough climb.But... worth it if you're willing to do the work! Most other books on "discrete math" are really UI catch ups for all the computer/math that's now been removed from High School curricula, making this one of the few "real deals" that are at a bright, high undergrad level, NOT catch up. By removing calculus from HS requirements, we're teaching 2,500 year old math, and adding the basics brings us up to 1666 or so. This book rapidly catapults our function math vs. function computing into the new century! Highly recommended IF you're not turned off by advanced math functions, mappings, properties, etc. The next time someone asks how a special or CAS function can run faster interpreted than compiled, you'll have a MUCH different answer! And of course the heart of all dynamical systems today includes differential equations, which are essentially recursive function processing.BEFORE AND AFTER: If you're not "quite" ready for this level of FP and Lisp, you can get a great, inexpensive backgrounder with Dover's An Introduction to Functional Programming Through Lambda Calculus (Dover Books on Mathematics). Mathwise, many Dover books on the keyword recursive functions will help. For a freebie intro, Graham's famous "on lisp" is now available as a free download, and is a bit above the level of this book. For the "greatest intellectual programming book ever written" (far beyond the level of this book, covering advanced Lisp macros, closures, etc.), check out (AFTER reading this): Let Over Lambda. Only 1% of programmers really understand Common Lisp, and only 1% of those would tackle the unhygenic macros in Let Over-- yet it is so intellectualy challenging that coders and engineers at all levels are astonished when they read it. Shows how high the bar can really get! (Lisp tends to do that, right?).IS IT DATED? In answer to a bunch of emailers asking that, NO-- the principles of functional are still the same, even if Common Lisp and Scheme have been updated. In fact, today, combinations of functional, imperative and logical are happening more and more (called mixed paradigm programming). However, if you want a GREAT, VERY RECENT book as both a warm up and an update to Abelson, try this little beauty by the same author as the Little Schemer: Realm of Racket: Learn to Program, One Game at a Time!. It will fill in where Abelson is a little out of date AND prepare you for his depth. WARNING: PLEASE BE SURE to get the 2nd Edition of Abelson, he updated it significantly for the relationship between time and memory, a relationship that is even today undergoing a LOT of research in many fields.

You need it, too. I won't pretend to have more useful insight into the art and craft of programming, or into SICP's relationship to it, than Paul Graham or Peter Norvig- if you want to know which reviews to trust, look these cats up.The discussion in the reviews usually concludes that this is the book that separates the computer scientists from the mere programmers. There is a definite logic to this. If you want a book that will have you churning out code that does something helpful in half an hour(because you don't think the several ways to calculate the Fibonacci Sequence are helpful), by all means, pick up Learning Perl or just read the Python documentation. They are great tools. If, however, you want to tool up on problem-solving technique a whole level or three higher up, SICP is for you. The Wizard Book is about learning to think better.Here is where I diverge from the idea that this book is for only computer scientists, though. I am an artist, graduated from college with a BA in art, going to graduate school for an MFA. SICP is one of the books that changed how I work and think. It will make you a better programmer if you read (and reread (and reread)) it in the same way that learning Latin will make you understand language itself in a whole new way. I use ideas from SICP constantly, to design software, but also to design staircases. The book is slow-going, no doubt about it, but you'll have a whole new mental toolset at the end.One caveat- this book is freely distributed in its entirety on MIT's website. I still bought a copy, though: who knows how long this internet thing will last, but SICP is going to be relevant forever.

I have only worked part of the way through the book, but it is one of the best books I've had the pleasure of learning from. It has an academic mathematical flavor to it, and the material is fairly dense; but the authors are masterful teachers and the exercises are very effective. Scheme is a fascinating language. At first it is uncomfortable to look at, especially if you're used to more mainstream languages. But once you get acclimated, you begin to see the beauty and raw power it holds. I recommend using the Racket IDE with the SICP extension when working through the book.

This was the book that made me want to be a computer programmer. When I read it, I had no knowledge of programming beyond a little Pascal, and rudiments of C.It had a massive impact on me. It consumed me, to the point where I had difficulty finishing assignments for my classes (I did not study CS as an undergrad). What the book does is give you a vocabulary and knowledge about programming that is hard to find anywhere else.The text, the examples and exercises, have a mathematical flavor, and that may turn off many potential readers, who would rather gadget around than find elegant solutions for the 8-queens puzzle or efficient algorithms to compute Fibonacci numbers.I've lent this book to several friends who were interested in learning to program, and in all cases they have returned it to me, saying it went over their heads.There seem to be two camps in computer programming:- the gadgeteers, who want to hook devices together and make them do fun things- the scientists, who appreciate computing as a medium in itselfThis book is for the second type.