On Oct 25, 1:08 am, "Giles Bowkett" <gil... / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Mark Dominus <mjdomi... / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 16, 9:36 am, "Giles Bowkett" <gil... / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My first intro to map, et al., was
> > > "Higher-OrderPerl." (Basically aPerltranslation of "SICP.")
>
> > It really isn't very much like a Perl translation of SICP.
>
>
> Portions of HOP appear to have been directly translated, nearly word
> for word, from the material in the SICP lectures.

I will assume that you did not intend to accuse me of plagiarism, and
just say that you are completely mistaken.   What you say is
impossible.  HOP was written and published before the SICP lectures
were publically available.  I did not attend MIT.  To this day I have
never seen the lectures.

> I could be totally off.

You are totally off.

> However the first few chapters of HOP cover material nearly identical
> to the material in the first few lectures, with near-identical
> examples and near-identical code.

Many of the early examples are quite standard and can be found in
many, many places.  There must be dozens of books that begin their
discussion of recursion with factorial, towers of Hanoi, and Fibonacci
numbers.  See, for example, Lawrence Paulson's book "ML for the
Working programmer", which (like SICP) was an inspiration for HOP.

But I think even a casual comparison of the tables of contents of HOP
and SICP will reveal more differences than similarities.  Both tables of
contents are on the web:

http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/toc/toc.html
http://hop.perl.plover.com/#toc

As for the "near-identical code", I can't imagine what you might mean,
since the SICP code is Scheme and the HOP code is Perl.