[vario]

As I said, I am pretty sure I remember seeing that phrase by Wadler but can't find the paper now. However, even in your link, Wadler says:

-"SICP is a brilliant book, but it is also a dangerous one. It is dangerous because it teaches students to scheme instead of to calculate."

- "SICP is a book about Scheme, not about programming."

- "SICP's emphasis on the 'scheming' approach to programming is a mistake."

- "SICP does not adequately teach the fundamentals of programming."

Is that what you call intellectually honest?

[Jtsummers]

I call it a disagreement, there are many of these kinds of disagreements especially in pedagogy. Sometimes people use strong and charged language in disagreements. It is not "intellectually dishonest" (quoting you, not Wadler since you still can't back that attribution) to write a book using Scheme just because others think Miranda (at the time, or another language today) would have been a better language. It would only have been intellectually dishonest if they knowingly chose Scheme to create an inferior experience (to what purpose?).

And I still contend that you are an intellectually dishonest person until you can properly attribute that quote to Wadler, or concede that you were wrong and made a false claim.

[vario]

The criticism in my previous comment backed by a valid and searchable source: "SICP does not adequately teach the fundamentals of programming." is huuge for a book claiming to the best in the field. It's not a matter of 'pedagogical disagreement'. What do you say in this regard?

Yes, unfortunately I can't find the paper and I even enlisted GPT4 to help me search, so it is possible that some other reviewer may have said that (and I may have read another review by Wadler before or after this review); So while Wadler may not have said that, he has plenty of beef with SICP in the paper in your comment which essentially boils down to implying intellectual dishonesty. If not, then you need to improve your reading comprehension.

I understand that you may have invested a lot of time and effort in SICP and Wadler's assessment of it (based on the paper you provided!) hurt your fragile ego, hence the rude attack on my intellectual integrity, but regardless of whether Wadler said the particular phrase "intellectually dishonest" or not, the implication of his complaints I listed in my previous comment (based on the paper you provided!) amounts to almost to expanded version of saying the same thing.

Also, a note on downvotes: the agreement of majority (shown via upvotes) is no guaranteed standard for quality or veracity of a comment/opinion and I couldn't care less about the "karma points"; my comments are fueled by intellectual integrity and curiosity, and that inevitably means some people might disagree with me. Just because you disagree does not mean I am wrong and you are right.