>>9
I don't think this is what Sussman is talking about as evidenced by the fact that he's interested in teaching using Scheme, and explicitly mentions in the paper running the program, but this was exactly my point. The natural conclusion seems to be that computing is in fact unnecessary, and that writing in a notation designed for understanding rather executing algorithms is even more beneficial. I say hoare logic, and you say pseudocode but really the point is the same.
~~ while we're on the topic of Sussman, what the fuck is this: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/structure-and-interpretation-computer-programs-1 ~~
>>10
It is a derivative work of the original SICP, as far as I can tell the Sussman is credited only for the original, but not the JavaScript parts: https://sicp.sourceacademy.org/index.html
The license is puzzling. The original SICP is available under CC-BY-SA, but this is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA. Does that mean that the copyright holder (MIT Press?) allowed them to re-license it, or can you just put NC on CC-BY-SA? Doesn't NC cause problems in educational contexts, e.g. you can't use it for tutoring if you are paid to tutor?
>>11
That makes sense. Regarding licensing for this to have been legal MIT would have to granted them permission, yes. I think fairuse covers some of the educational context, and as a tutor you can just lend someone your book without licensing issues, even if licenses were enforced. Only issue would be reproducing large sections of the text for many people like you might get if a "code academy" adopts the text I'd imagine.