编程与软件工程wisdomandwonder.com
MIT 为何从 Scheme 转向 Python（2009）
Why MIT switched from Scheme to Python (2009)
2009 — 2025，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇短文围绕 MIT 在 2009 年把入门课程从 Scheme 转向 Python 的讨论，转述了 Sussman 等人的说法：选择 Python 更多是出于实际考虑，例如机器人接口已有现成库；评论则补充说课程目标本身也转向了更广泛的 EECS 主题。核心争论不是语言纯粹性，而是计算机入门教育该更重概念清晰还是工程实用。
为什么经久不衰：它把“教学语言该选概念纯粹还是工程实用”这一老争论放进一次真实的课程改革中，因此多年后仍会被反复提起。
HN 评论精选
MIT 的实用主义加上 Python 兼顾 CS 清晰性与工程实用性，换语言是进步而非倒退。
我认为 Sussman 的话里还隐含着一个重要点：MIT 建校基于实用主义哲学，其他都是次要的。若再结合“基础计算机科学是提升实用软件工程最有效的方式”这一信念，Scheme 曾是个极好的选择。Java 和 C++ 对软件工程师可能更直接实用，但它们不利于这个领域或推动边界的人——你会花太多时间纠缠于它们的范式和怪癖。Python（以及不少进入主流的脚本语言）把计算机科学的清晰性与 Scheme 从未拥有的实用性结合起来。如果 Python 能传达 95% 的基本思想，又能让你学会处理第三方代码，不选它才是愚蠢。这从来不是编程纯粹性的问题，所以没必要为 Scheme 的消逝哀悼。这是进步。
trjordan查看英文原文
I think there's something else here, implicit in Sussman's comment, that's important. MIT was founded on a philosophy of practicality, and everything else is secondary. If you couple that with the belief that fundamental computer science is the most efficient way to enhance practical software engineering, Scheme was a wonderful choice. Java and C++ may have been more directly practical to software engineers, but they are not good for the field or people pushing the limits of the field - you spent too much time mucking around with their paradigms and idiosyncrasies. Python (and, frankly, a number of the scripting languages-turned-mainstream) combines this clarity of computer science with a practicality that Scheme never had. If you can convey 95% of the basic ideas in Python, and you can also open the door to learning how to deal with 3rd party code, you'd be a fool not to. It was never about programming purity anyway, so there's no reason to mourn the passing of Scheme. It's progress.
6.01 的目标已扩展为更广泛的 EECS 入门，Python 只是更易上手的工具，并非简单换语言。
我两年前做过 6.01 的助教。6.01 和 6.02 可能取代了 6.001/6.002，但目的根本不同：它们现在是广泛 CS 主题的入门——6.01 不只软件工程，还覆盖反馈控制、电路、概率与规划；6.02 覆盖信号处理、数字逻辑、网络。现代计算机科学家需要知道的不只是写干净模块化代码。6.01 的 FAQ 说仍教软件抽象，包括函数式编程、高阶函数和面向对象。选 Python 主要因为它容易上手。所谓“现代化”多数不是 Scheme 换 Python，而是聚焦于在多种语境中学习模块化/抽象和建模/分析。另外，6.01 假定你已有编程经验；不会编程应先上 6.00。
lyriendel查看英文原文
I was a TA for 6.01 two years ago. 6.01 and 6.02 (Intro to EECS II, may have replaced 6.001 and 6.002, but their purposes are fundamentally different, as someone else mentioned earlier. They're now both introductions to a wide range of CS topics--6.01 covers not just software engineering, but feedback and control, circuits, and probability and planning; 6.02 covers things like signal processing, digital logic, and networking. Good computer scientists nowadays need to (or at least should) know so much more than how to write good, clean, modular code. As the 6.01 FAQ says, they still teach software abstraction ideas including functional programming, higher-order functions, and object-oriented programming. They chose Python mostly because Python is easily approachable. But most of 'modernizing' 6.001 isn't about moving from scheme to Python--it's focusing on learning how to modularize/abstract and model/analyze across a variety of different contexts (not just software, but linear systems, circuits, and AI). Also, 6.01 actually assumes that you have some programming experience already. When I TAed, at least, we assumed working knowledge of basic Python from week 1 and told people to go read a Python tutorial/book if they didn't have such. If you don't know how to program at all, you're supposed to take 6.00 first, which is the real 'Introduction to Programming' course. Except that most people skip it because they already know how to program or think they can learn on their own (and because it's kind of seen as a remedial course, which is especially unfortunate for people who really don't know how to program already--6.01 is pretty harsh if you've never programmed before).
6.01 教的是计算思维而非编码速成，Python 清晰易学，换语言不必愤怒。
我是 MIT 大二学生，上学期上了 6.01。很多人不理解课程目标。6.01 不是写代码速成课（那是 6.005，外号“java 死亡实验室”），也不是揭示计算机深层原理；它是教你如何用计算机思考，概念上更高层，常关注“为什么”而非“做什么”。我们学如何入手问题、用逻辑和代码找最佳解法。Python 视觉上清晰、文档好、维护得好、社区活跃。我不理解换语言引发的愤怒。我不是在冷门欧洲跑车里学开车，而是在我妈的面包车里学；Python 就像我妈的面包车，但文档更好。我不认为未来 MIT CS 毕业生的水平会因会 Python 而改变，虽然值得观察。
grinich查看英文原文
I'm a sophomore at MIT and took 6.01 last term. I think a lot of people don't understand the goals of this course. 6.01 is not meant to be a crash-course in writing code. (6.005, know as "java deathlab" is for that.) Likewise, it's not designed to reveal the deep inner workings of computers. Instead, it's mean to be an introduction in how to /think/ with computers. It's conceptually more high-level, and often focuses on the "why" rather than the "what." We learn how to approach problems and look at the best ways to solve them using logic and code. Python is visually clear, has great documentation, is well maintained, and has an active community of developers. I don't understand the outrage in switching. I didn't learn to drive in an obscure European sportscar; I learned in my mom's minivan. Python is like my mom's minivan, but with better documentation. I don't think the caliber of CS grads coming out of MIT in the next few years will change because they know Python, although it'd be an interesting thing to look at. # Here's the course website, if you'd like to look closer: http://mit.edu/6.01/mercurial/spring09/www/index.html
选择 Python 有很实际的原因：机器人接口已有现成库，MIT 内部库也受 Pyro 启发。
“那为什么是 Python？”Sussman 说，可能只是机器人接口已经有一个现成库，仅此而已。我可以确认这是真的。Python Robotics 模块（Pyro）启发了 MIT 内部库 SoaR，最初由一位很有动力的助教开发。SoaR 代表什么？当然是 Snakes on a Robot。
mjtokelly查看英文原文
"And why Python, then? Well, said Sussman, it probably just had a library already implemented for the robotics interface, that was all." I can confirm this is true. The Python Robotics module (Pyro) inspired MIT's internal library, SoaR, which was developed at first by a highly motivated TA. What does SoaR stand for? Snakes on a Robot, of course.
历次讨论
同类还值得读
开源应用架构
The Architecture of Open Source Applications
《开源软件架构》（AOSA）是一本在线免费书，邀请知名开源项目的作者亲自剖析其内部设计，涵盖 SQLAlchemy、LLVM、Audacity、Apache、Bash 等系统。
编程与软件工程上首页 9 次 · 2011–2024aosabook.org编辑精选编程语言简史：简短、不完整且多半错误
A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages
一篇以戏谑、故意不准确的方式回顾编程语言史的博客文章，用夸张轶事和讽刺定义串起 Lisp、C、C++、Java、JavaScript、PHP 等语言。
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2021james-iry.blogspot.comSQLite 是如何测试的
How SQLite is tested
SQLite 官方文档页，系统介绍 SQLite 的测试体系：多种测试方法（TCL 测试、模糊测试、回归测试、静态分析等）和海量测试用例，展示了这个小型开源项目如何靠极致测试获得…
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2025sqlite.org编辑精选高级编程语言（2009）
Advanced programming languages (2009)
Matt Might 的经典文章，按用途推荐“高级编程语言”：如果追求就业就选主流语言，如果追求表达力、学术研究或创业，则推荐 Haskell、OCaml、Scala 等函数式语…
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2022matt.might.net我的 Forth 与栈机器经历
Yosefk - My history with Forth & stack machines
作者以亲身经历回顾了使用 Forth 语言和栈式机器的历程：既赞叹其简洁优雅、代码量小、可自举的优点，也坦率指出栈操作在实际编程中的痛苦，以及 Forth 社区文化中的问题。
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2010–2024yosefk.com编辑精选