[rbongers]

I think the other reply to my post is on to something when they say there are many paths to mastery. I have just laid out one path. I don't know what the ideal general learning path is, but I know what worked for me. There is certainly a level where you gain enough knowledge to remove magical thinking entirely and you "learn how to learn", and there's no one way to reach that. I have not seen anyone reach that level by learning only specific abstractions, but I can only talk about my own experience.

I also don't think every programmer needs to follow this kind of path. All I'm saying is someone has to write "jpeg.open()" in the first place.

[IshKebab]

> All I'm saying is someone has to write "jpeg.open()" in the first place.

Of course but my point is that where do you stop? Someone had to design a multiplier. Someone had do invent a diode.

The point at which you say "I don't really care about the level of abstraction below this" is more or less arbitrary. Knowing more is better of course, but there isn't really any level that you have to know.

[rbongers]

I would just expect MIT, of all places, to go quite low. I suppose everything has to come to an end, and MIT can't have the most intensive course forever. I just can't help but feel it's representative of what's happening everywhere.

[IshKebab]

Yeah you have a point. I would hope they have a more introductory module available first but I feel like SICP should be an advanced module for people specifically doing compsci. (I have no idea how American unis work; maybe it's already like that.)

I definitely remember when I did an engineering degree at Cambridge they had us doing assembly and typing decimal opcodes into a numberpad on an ancient microcontroller dev kit. I understood it but it sure was tedious and off-putting. And I say that as a typical HNer who has programmed forever and I even ended up doing CPU verification professionally. I imagine everyone else absolutely hated it.