SICP 計算機(jī)程序的構(gòu)造和解釋.doc

SICP 計算機(jī)程序的構(gòu)造和解釋SICP-計算機(jī)程序的構(gòu)造和解釋20XX-06-06 22：08計算機(jī)程序的構(gòu)造和解釋(原書第2版)【原書名】Structure and Interpretation of puter Programs,Second Edition【原出版社】Massachusetts Institute of Technology【作者】(美)Harold Abelson,Gerald Jay Sussman,Julie Sussman【譯者】裘宗燕【叢書名】計算機(jī)科學(xué)叢書【出版社】機(jī)械工業(yè)出版社【參考資料】相關(guān)網(wǎng)站有本書源代碼及其他教輔資料，網(wǎng)址為：-/sicp/最省事的scheme環(huán)境，初學(xué)推薦Scheme Programming Language,2nd Edition?；1996 Prentice Hall更多關(guān)于scheme開放式課程計劃OOPS【評論】紫皮書(Purple Book)！巫師書！SICP！TheBook！四個名字都是這本書的昵稱，紫皮書是因為書皮是紫的，巫師書是因為書皮上印著一男一女兩個巫師模樣的人，SICP就是書名幾個單詞的首字母，TheBook是因為這本書是在scheme領(lǐng)域內(nèi)公認(rèn)的圣經(jīng)，所以有此昵稱絕對是好書,非常具有啟發(fā)性.把編譯器、算法、硬件的的內(nèi)容用Lisp語言聯(lián)系起來。次書是我學(xué)習(xí)CS的第一本教材(MIT的6.001)，非常好。Its the Best！Its the Worst！Why the split?,May 8,2000 Reviewer：Peter Norvig(Palo Alto,CA USA)-See all my reviews Ithink its fascinating that there is such asplit between those who love and hate this book.Most reviews give abell-shaped curve of star ratings；this one has apeak at 1,a peak at 5,and very little in between.How could this be?I think it is because SICP is avery personal message that works only if the reader is aputer scientist(or willing to bee one).So Iagree that the books odds of success are better if you read it after having some experience.To use an analogy,if SICP were about automobiles,it would be for the person who wants to know how cars work,how they are built,and how one might design fuel-efficient,safe,reliable vehicles for the 21st century.The people who hate SICP are the ones who just want to know how to drive their car on the highway,just like everyone else.if you want to be areal professional,you should read this Donald Knuth says he wrote his books forthe one person in 50 who has this strange way of thinking that makes aprogrammer.I think the most amazing thing about SICP is that there are so FEW people who hate it：if Knuth were right,then only 1out of 50 people would be giving this 5stars,instead of about 25 out of 50.Now,a big part of the explanation is that the audience is sel f-selected,and is not arepresentative sample.But Ithink part of it is because Sussman and Abelson have succeeded grandly in municatingthis strange way of thinkingto(some but not all)people who otherwise would never get there.Those who hate SICP think it doesnt deliver enough tips and tricks for the amount of time it takes to read.But if youre like me,youre not looking for one more trick,rather youre looking for away of synthesizing what you already know,and building arich framework onto which you can add new learning over acareer.Thats what SICP has done for me.I read adraft version of the book around 1982 and it changed the way Ithink about my profession.If youre athoughtful puter scientist(or want to be one),it will change your life too.Some of the reviewers plain that SICP doesnt teach the basics of OO design,and so on.In asense they are right.The book doesnt directly tell you how to design and write an object-oriented program using the subset of object-orien ted principles that show up in the syntax of Java or C+.Rather,the book tells you what those principles are,how they came to be selected as worthwhile,how they can be implemented from the ground up,and how adifferent bination of principles might be more appropriate for aparticular problem.This approach requires you to understand the range of possibilities,and to think about trade-offs as you go through the design process.Programming is acraft that is subject to frequent failure：many projects are started and abandoned because the designers do not have the flexibility,experience and understanding to e up with asuitable design and implementation.SICP gives you an approach that will succeed,but it is an approach based on principles and wisdom,not on achecklist.If you dont understand the principles,or if you are the kind of person who wants to be given acookbook of what to do rather than to think creatively,or if you only want to work on problems that are pretty much like the problem you worked on last time,then this approach will not work for you.There are other approaches that will be more reproducible for alimited range of simple problems,but there is no better way than SICP to learn how to address the truly hard problems.The Classic,May 20,2000 Reviewer：paul graham(Cambridge,MA United States)-See all my reviews This is one of the great classics of puter science.I bought my first copy 15 years ago,and Istill dont feel Ihave learned everything the book has to teach.I have learned enough to write acouple books on Lisp that(currently)have four to five stars.Yet SICP,which is pretty much the bible of our world,has only three?How can this be?Reading the reviews made it clear what happened.An optimistic professor somewhere has been feeding SICP to undergrads who are not ready for it.But it is encouraging to see how many thoughtful people have e forward to defend the book.Lets see if we can put this in terms that the undergrads will understand-a problem set：1.Kenneth Clark said that if alot of smart people have liked something that you dont,you should try and figure out what they saw in it.List 10 qualities that SICPs defenders have claimed for it.2.How is the intention of SICP different from that of Knuth?Kernighan&Ritchie?An algorithms textbook?3.Does any other book fulfill this purpose better?4.What other programming books first published in the mid 1980s are still relevant today?5.Could the concepts in this book have been presented any better in alanguage other than Scheme?6.Who is al?Why is his name in lowercase?讀書時曾經(jīng)讀過William R.Cook的文章Object-oriented programming versus abstract data types，當(dāng)時對文章中的觀點有些疑惑，當(dāng)我讀到2.4抽象數(shù)據(jù)的多重表示時，頓時豁然開朗，作者談及數(shù)據(jù)導(dǎo)向的程序設(shè)計和可加性時給出的圖2-22復(fù)數(shù)系統(tǒng)的操作表與William R.Co