Realm is targeted at readers who have something like a semester or two of programming experience. Ages 16--80 I'd say but exceptions in both directions imaginable.
The code is idiomatic. On Nov 13, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Ben Duan <yfe...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm wondering who are the target readers for Realm. Is it written for kids? I > have already spent some time in Racket and want to read some idiomatic Racket > code. Is it a suitable book? > > Thanks, > Ben > > > On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:20 AM, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> > wrote: > > Lawrence, let me supplement Alex's answer. if you have programmed before, > dive right into Realm. If it is your first real adventure in programming, > take the time to work through HtDP. -- Matthias > > > > On Nov 12, 2013, at 12:47 PM, Alexander McLin <alex.mc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Racket is truely a great and cleaner Lisp. It's carved out its own path > > that I find quite attractive and am enjoying my forays into Racket. > > > > I would recommend you just get started with The Little Schemer to get a > > taste, move on to How To Design Programs. There is a Coursera course that > > uses HTDP, although I haven't taken it myself, is probably easier to stick > > with than going through HTDP on your own. Realm of Racket is a nice book > > but best read after you've already had some experience with a Lisp dialect. > > > > Find or plan a project using Racket as your main coding language to help > > you use and grow with it. For example I'm using Racket to develop programs > > for the Coursera Bioinformatics Algorithm course. > > > > However, I want to tell you that Common Lisp resources has plenty of > > valuable information to learn even if you don't end up using CL regularly. > > I'm not really a CL user but I still read a lot of CL books for interesting > > Lisp history and techniques. > > > > Racket is also especially nice that it has a strong academic and > > theoretical community with high quality written papers which are good > > source of material to understand more about language design and usage. > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Lawrence Bottorff <borg...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > I'm your typical newbie who is hand-wringing over what direction to go in > > the general functional programming world. Lisp, Scheme, or Haskell? > > > > Of late I've been trying to get through the Barski book, "Land of Lisp," > > but I'm really seeing now why Scheme was created: CL seems to have a ton of > > gnarl that is part-functional, part-whatever, leaving me wondering and > > neurotic. And so I'm trying to understand some esoteric, arcane Lisp > > printing/file management weirdness -- which I'm told is not proper > > functional style -- after I've just been introduced to yet another CL map > > variation, after (funcall thunk). So I guess I'd like your advice vis-a-vis > > Racket. Q: Is Racket "cleaner," or is full of pork too? Or have I just got > > the wrong book for a beginner? > > > > I understand that Barski is slavishly following the "let's get real stuff > > done" philosophy, but I'm not up to speed with functional yet to even know > > what's going on. Is your "Realm of Racket" better at this? I feel like I'm > > spinning my wheels at this point. . . . > > > > LB > > > > > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
