> Quite a bit of SICP would be awkward to translate into a language that doesn't support TCO, such as Clojure.

>> Clojure doesn't have implicit tail call but it does have loop-recur and trampoline. SICP can be followed quite easily in Clojure.

>>> http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-11.html.... This section relies on TCO. I realize that it could be translated, but I do not feel that this could be done without heavy modification. Besides that, basically the section's goal is to explain TCO.

This is the scheme implementation:

  (define (factorial n)
    (fact-iter 1 1 n))

  (define (fact-iter product counter max-count)
    (if (> counter max-count)
        product
        (fact-iter (* counter product)
                  (+ counter 1)
                  max-count)))

And this is the analogous(but not idiomatic) clojure:

  (defn fact-iter [product counter max-count]
    (if (> counter max-count)
      product
      (recur (* counter product) (inc counter) max-count)))

  (defn factorial [n]
    (fact-iter 1 1 n))

There are no heavy modifications.

> Besides that, basically the section's goal is to explain TCO.

  def fact_iter(product, counter, max_count)
    return product if counter > max_count
    fact_iter (counter * product), (counter + 1), max_count
  end

  def fact(n)
    fact_iter 1, 1, n
  end

Now Ruby doesn't have TCO. But how does it stop you from understanding TCO, and how to implement them if the runtime supports it?

I read SICP some time ago, and didn't do all the exercises, but as far as I recall, chapters 1-3 can easily be followed in Clojure, Ruby, JS...