typical sicp hater

<heedful> is it just me or is SICP overrated, intentionally verbose for Abelson's own self-gratification and lacking in practicality? the book is garbage (in my opinion, of course) and i would like to hear the opinions of other programmers? thanks in advance
<anon> heedful, no its a good obok
<heedful> anon: you can't even spell 'book' and likely haven't even read SICP in its entirety; just another bandwagoner praising this bombastic piece of shit
<heedful> fuck you, cunt
<heedful> i mean anon

I've started translating SICP to the AMEN combinator base:

A = λm n f x → n f (m f x )
M = λm n f → n (m f )
E = λm n → n m
N = λx y → y

Let N represents Church Numeral 0, then (N N) can represent the number one. A then adds two Church Numerals, M multiplies, and E exponentiates.

and it has all become much much clearer to me. I understand everything now.. it's a bad book and the author's should be ashamed of it. The only reason it has become so popular it because it was crammed down the throats of thousands of US CS students before they realized they were gay.

Never forget: (-b ± √(b² - 4ac))/2a