concise introduction to scheme?
Russ Ross
familiar with Common Lisp as well as other functional languages
(Haskell, OCaml) and a bunch of imperative languages. Most
introductions I've found spend a lot of time introducing basic
functional concepts and I'd like something that assumes a knowledge of
functional programming concepts.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Russ
Jens Axel Søgaard
Perhaps Dybvig's book "The Scheme Programming Language" which is
on-line at
or (if you are tough) the language standard it-self
http://www.schemers.org/Documents/Standards/R5RS/
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
As a basic introduction that assumes knowledge of FP, but doesn't skip
unusual features like call/cc, there's Dorai Sitaram's _Teach Yourself
Scheme in Fixnum Days_:
<http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/dorai/t-y-scheme/t-y-scheme.html>
The only downside is that it describes defmacro rather than
define-syntax in its section on macros.
--
Neel Krishnaswami
ne...@alum.mit.edu
Hrvoje Blazevic
Another good book (which seems to be forgotten now) is SAP. It is more CS than
Scheme, but has considerably more Scheme than SICP for instance. It is not
"quick" though.
Jens Axel Søgaard
> Another good book (which seems to be forgotten now) is SAP.
"Scheme and the Art of Programming" by Springer and Friedman?
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Hrvoje Blazevic
> Hrvoje Blazevic wrote:
>
>
>>Another good book (which seems to be forgotten now) is SAP.
>
>
> "Scheme and the Art of Programming" by Springer and Friedman?
>
Yeah.
Jens Axel Søgaard
I wonder whether the reason it is forgotten is that's not on-line.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Hrvoje Blazevic
> Hrvoje Blazevic wrote:
>
>>Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>>
>>>Hrvoje Blazevic wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Another good book (which seems to be forgotten now) is SAP.
>>>
>>>"Scheme and the Art of Programming" by Springer and Friedman?
>>
>>Yeah.
>
>
> I wonder whether the reason it is forgotten is that's not on-line.
I'm not the right person to answer this. For me to enjoy the book,
I must physically grab the hefty paper package -- must be the old age :-)
Even if the book is on-line, I hardly ever look at it. On the other hand, if
it is on-line, and can be downloaded, then I will download it and print it --
so I have my paper again :-)
But, maybe you're right. Hmm ... I'll mail this thread to Friedman.
u.r. faust
>>>> Another good book (which seems to be forgotten now) is SAP.
> I wonder whether the reason it is forgotten is that's not on-line.
Probably.
I wonder why they do not make it available on line.
The sales cannot be high.
At least if it were online, it might get some people interested in buying
hardcopies of it.
--
natsu-gusa ya / tsuwamono-domo-ga / yume no ato
summer grasses / strong ones / dreams site
Summer grasses,
All that remains
Of soldier's dreams
(Basho trans. Stryk)
u.r. faust
> I'm not the right person to answer this. For me to enjoy the book,
> I must physically grab the hefty paper package -- must be the old age :-)
That is true of most of us.
However, if it wre availabe online, then one could see whether it is worth
buying.
I have seen a copy in the library, but passed it by.
To avoid the problem of people printing out the book instead of buyin it,
one could make it available in small chunks ( one page to each html file )
This would discourage "printers".
In any case, Amazon reports it as "Out of stock".
At Amazon, the most prominent reader review about it is dreadfully negative.
Hrvoje Blazevic
> Hrvoje Blazevic <hrv...@despammed.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>I'm not the right person to answer this. For me to enjoy the book,
>>I must physically grab the hefty paper package -- must be the old age :-)
>
>
> That is true of most of us.
> However, if it wre availabe online, then one could see whether it is worth
> buying.
>
> I have seen a copy in the library, but passed it by.
>
> To avoid the problem of people printing out the book instead of buyin it,
> one could make it available in small chunks ( one page to each html file )
> This would discourage "printers".
By printing the book that is available for download, I mean books that are
(precisely what you mention below) out of stock, and will not be printed
again. Good example is "The Icon Programming Language 3e".
>
> In any case, Amazon reports it as "Out of stock".
> At Amazon, the most prominent reader review about it is dreadfully negative.
>
>
I would assume that all really interested in Scheme would by now have
understood that Amazon.com reader reviews account to nothing (when it involves
Scheme). I'm sure that you have seen the drivel written about SICP -- the same
goes for SAP. I remember one review of Little Schemer, where the reviewer
stated: "Do not learn Scheme use Lisp ... it is much easier!" -- or something
to that extent. Makes me wonder how much of Lisp does that guy really know?
Jens Axel Søgaard
> Hrvoje Blazevic <hrv...@despammed.com> writes:
>
>> I'm not the right person to answer this. For me to enjoy the book,
>> I must physically grab the hefty paper package -- must be the old
>> age :-)
Well, my use of paper is not exactly for the faint of heart.
> That is true of most of us.
> However, if it wre availabe online, then one could see whether it is
> worth buying.
Yes and combined with the fact that the other Scheme books also
are of a high quality.
There is a good list at http://www.schemers.org/Documents/#all-texts .
Does anybody know the book "Simply Scheme"? The description looked
interesting.
> To avoid the problem of people printing out the book instead of buyin
> it, one could make it available in small chunks ( one page to each
> html file ) This would discourage "printers".
>
> In any case, Amazon reports it as "Out of stock".
Bad sign.
> At Amazon, the most prominent reader review about it is dreadfully
> negative.
I must say that I don't take the reviews of random readers very
seriouslly. The only reviewer whose name I recognize is Brent Fuglham,
and he gives it 4 out of 5 stars.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Jean-Paul Roy
Hrvoje Blazevic <hrv...@despammed.com> wrote:
> Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> > Hrvoje Blazevic wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Another good book (which seems to be forgotten now) is SAP.
So funny that I searched Google with the words "SAP book scheme"
and I got :
http://elc.polyu.edu.hk/cill/gills.htm
and I said to myself "Woaw, a Scheme tutor on-line" !
-jpr
Jean-Paul Roy
> buying.
Out of stock. Could rest in peace at http://books.pdox.net/
-jpr
Neelakantan Krishnaswami
> Does anybody know the book "Simply Scheme"? The description looked
> interesting.
I looked at it almost a decade ago. IIRC, it's a text for total
novices that introduces them to the programming using Scheme. The goal
is that at the end of the course they should be able to move on to
something like SICP.
It's probably not too useful for anyone who knows enough about
functional programming to read c.l.f. :)
--
Neel Krishnaswami
ne...@alum.mit.edu
Daniel Dudley
news:roy-B30170.1...@malibu.unice.fr...
You won't be laughing if you visit that URL. GILLS -- now
SAP -- is a scheme operated by the Centre for Independent
Language Learning (CILL) to help small groups of learners
who need professional guidance in the development of the
English language skills they need for their studies and
future career.
But maybe you need such help? :-)
Daniel
Hrvoje Blazevic
>
> There is a good list at http://www.schemers.org/Documents/#all-texts .
> Does anybody know the book "Simply Scheme"? The description looked
> interesting.
>
Well, for once -- I'm the right person to answer this :-)
My first Scheme (ergo FPL) book. At the time I read it -- the best book I have
ever seen. However, this must be taken in a proper context.
At the time I was busy trying to get my son interested in CS so I read (with
him) Brian Harvey's CSLS (CS Logo Style). It came as a natural extension to
continue with the same author's Scheme book.
SSICS is basically a high school text, witty and interesting. To fully
appreciate it, one must follow the path I did; Logo->Scheme.
The problem with SSICS is that after HtDP appeared, Brian's book lost a lot of
appeal as a first FP book for high school level. If anything; where HtDP is
more systematic, SSICS is more fun (and even this is probably very
subjective, as throughout the years I have kept very interesting e-mail
relation with Brian -- mostly related to his Berkeley Logo interpreter).
The only solid proof of SSICS value that I can offer is the fact that it
turned what was basically an "imperative" programmer (me :-), to an almost
religious FP follower.
BTW: one of the first reviews on amazon.com is mine.
Jens Axel Søgaard
> Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> SSICS is basically a high school text, witty and interesting. To fully
> appreciate it, one must follow the path I did; Logo->Scheme.
>
> The problem with SSICS is that after HtDP appeared, Brian's book lost
> a lot of appeal as a first FP book for high school level. If anything; where
> HtDP is more systematic, SSICS is more fun (and even this is probably very
> subjective, as throughout the years I have kept very interesting e-
> mail relation with Brian -- mostly related to his Berkeley Logo
> interpreter).
;-)
I think I'll try to read it. I teach high school, and this year I'm for the
first time using HTDP (and like it). Extra examples, ideas and applications
are always a good though.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Jim Bender
"Jens Axel Søgaard" <use...@soegaard.net> wrote in message
news:3e250f92$0$71679$edfa...@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> >> "Scheme and the Art of Programming" by Springer and Friedman?
> >
> > Yeah.
>
> I wonder whether the reason it is forgotten is that's not on-line.
Probably a more basic reason that is is "forgotten" is that it is not as
widely used
as a university textbook (and even less, as a high school text). After all,
Essentials
of Programming Languages and the Little/Seasoned Schemer books aren't
online either.
One problem is that there aren't that many courses that teach Scheme as such
(as opposed
to teaching programming [a la HTDP], or teaching programming languages [a la
EOPL]
via programming in Scheme).
To the degree that this book is "forgotten", it is a shame. It has a couple
really good chapters
on applications of continuations (and call/cc)-- perhaps a year ago, I was
reminded of this by
an LL1 posting from Matthias Felleisen on "suggested readings" on
continuations.
Jim
Hrvoje Blazevic
>
> To the degree that this book is "forgotten", it is a shame. It has a couple
> really good chapters
> on applications of continuations (and call/cc)-- perhaps a year ago, I was
> reminded of this by
> an LL1 posting from Matthias Felleisen on "suggested readings" on
> continuations.
>
This is precisely the reason why I suggested the book in the first place.
Hrvoje Blazevic
>
> I think I'll try to read it. I teach high school, and this year I'm for the
> first time using HTDP (and like it). Extra examples, ideas and applications
> are always a good though.
>
It is good to hear that you can teach Scheme in high school (in Denmark I
suppose). Over here it is still Pascal only :-(
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Hrvoje Blazevic wrote:
>
> I would assume that all really interested in Scheme would by now have
> understood that Amazon.com reader reviews account to nothing (when it
> involves Scheme).
Those "reviews" are *in general* sometimes quite harmful and incompetent.
I wonder whether the scientific community can do something about it. For
example demanding that Amazon refuses to publish comments which hit a
very strong opposition of the professionals who have refereed the book
before its publication.
Fortunately some respectable people contribute as well, but rarely...
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Michael Schuerig
> Hrvoje Blazevic wrote:
>
>>
>> I would assume that all really interested in Scheme would by now have
>> understood that Amazon.com reader reviews account to nothing (when it
>> involves Scheme).
>
> Those "reviews" are *in general* sometimes quite harmful and
> incompetent. I wonder whether the scientific community can do
> something about it. For example demanding that Amazon refuses to
> publish comments which hit a very strong opposition of the
> professionals who have refereed the book before its publication.
This would sooner or later lead to a fight over who is authoritative to
judge a book. More general, whose opinion on a topic counts for
anything and whose is going to be suppressed. About the only case that
comes to mind where I feel comfortable with this kind of pre-selection
is refereed scientific journals.
The same peer-review schemes will not work in the case of Amazon (or a
similiar "almost-commoditity"): Who's to judge a book on creationism?
The experts who wrote the back cover blurb or academic biologists?
So, in my view people ought to treat customer reviews on Amazon the same
way they ought to treat everything else on the web: with their mind
switched on. Those reviews state opinions, nothing more; the ones that
don't convince me or make me think I ignore -- on Amazon, on the web,
in real life.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig All good people read good books
mailto:schu...@acm.org Now your conscience is clear
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --Tanita Tikaram, "Twist In My Sobriety"
u.r. faust
> To the degree that this book is "forgotten", it is a shame. It has a couple
> really good chapters
> on applications of continuations (and call/cc)-- perhaps a year ago, I was
I must track down the library copy then.
Hrvoje Blazevic
> Jerzy Karczmarczuk wrote:
>
>
>>Hrvoje Blazevic wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would assume that all really interested in Scheme would by now have
>>>understood that Amazon.com reader reviews account to nothing (when it
>>>involves Scheme).
>>
>>Those "reviews" are *in general* sometimes quite harmful and
>>incompetent. I wonder whether the scientific community can do
>>something about it. For example demanding that Amazon refuses to
>>publish comments which hit a very strong opposition of the
>>professionals who have refereed the book before its publication.
>
>
> This would sooner or later lead to a fight over who is authoritative to
> judge a book. More general, whose opinion on a topic counts for
> anything and whose is going to be suppressed. About the only case that
> comes to mind where I feel comfortable with this kind of pre-selection
> is refereed scientific journals.
>
> The same peer-review schemes will not work in the case of Amazon (or a
> similiar "almost-commoditity"): Who's to judge a book on creationism?
> The experts who wrote the back cover blurb or academic biologists?
I would almost agree with you. That is; I agree that some sort of moderated
review posting on amazon.com is not possible. It would sooner or later amount
to censorship.
> So, in my view people ought to treat customer reviews on Amazon the same
> way they ought to treat everything else on the web: with their mind
> switched on. Those reviews state opinions, nothing more; the ones that
> don't convince me or make me think I ignore -- on Amazon, on the web,
> in real life.
However, there is a difference (at least in my experience) between Scheme
books, and other (main stream) CS books. One rarely sees such abusive
language, and drivel written about, say, Python, Ruby, C ... books. Therefore
Schemers have to be extra careful :-)
The issue I find really disturbing here is that the worst Scheme book (IMHO:
Eisenberg "Programming in Scheme") is still by far better than a silly book
like "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist - Learning with Python" that
scored 5,5,5,4,4,1 stars. If I were to score Eisenberg with 3, I would have to
give "Learning with Python" 1, although that would be a bit too harsh.
The reason for such unrealistic scoring of Scheme books could be students that
had Scheme rammed down their throats, before they were ready for it, or
possibly from those that will never be ready. The kind of mediocre programmer
that adores OO and imperative style.
(As for why mediocre, see: http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html)
Michael Schuerig
> However, there is a difference (at least in my experience) between
> Scheme books, and other (main stream) CS books. One rarely sees such
> abusive language, and drivel written about, say, Python, Ruby, C ...
> books. Therefore Schemers have to be extra careful :-)
>
> The issue I find really disturbing here is that the worst Scheme book
> (IMHO: Eisenberg "Programming in Scheme") is still by far better than
> a silly book like "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist - Learning
> with Python" that scored 5,5,5,4,4,1 stars. If I were to score
> Eisenberg with 3, I would have to give "Learning with Python" 1,
> although that would be a bit too harsh.
I don't think it is in any way meaningful to compare the scorings for
books from totally different categories. When I'm looking for a Scheme
book, I won't buy a Python book instead because it got more stars.
Admittedly, I do use the stars as a hint when I get a large recall on a
search. When I have a closer look at a book page, I usually read the
most recent reviews -- most often overly enthusiastic and rather
useless for that. Then I look for bad reviews! Often they are much more
helpful. Among them you find people who have a fixation with
typographic errors, fight intra-disciplinary battles, were forced to
read the book (to ill effect), or convincingly expose the book for how
bad it is. People are either able to make up their mind for themselves
or otherwise get what they deserve.
> The reason for such unrealistic scoring of Scheme books could be
> students that had Scheme rammed down their throats, before they were
> ready for it, or possibly from those that will never be ready. The
> kind of mediocre programmer that adores OO and imperative style.
> (As for why mediocre, see: http://www.paulgraham.com/noop.html)
Well, actually, I do adore OO, even though I have read Paul Graham's
essays, have studied with SICP way back when, have learned Haskell (a
bit) and am currently learning Common Lisp. I'm still waiting for a
demonstration that convincingly shows what and why is so much better
than OO (design and programming) *for the tasks it's commonly used
for*.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig Thinking is trying to make up
mailto:schu...@acm.org for a gap in one's education.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --Gilbert Ryle
Jens Axel Søgaard
Well, I think 65% teaches Delhpi, 30% Visual Basic and 5% Java.
To my knowledge I'm the only one teaching Scheme. But you are
right, it it great that I can choose for myself.
Oh I almost forgot - and a quite few teaches some JavaScript as
a secondary language.
--
Jens Axel Søgaard
Hrvoje Blazevic
> Hrvoje Blazevic wrote:
>
>>The issue I find really disturbing here is that the worst Scheme book
>>(IMHO: Eisenberg "Programming in Scheme") is still by far better than
>>a silly book like "How to Think Like a Computer Scientist - Learning
>>with Python" that scored 5,5,5,4,4,1 stars. If I were to score
>>Eisenberg with 3, I would have to give "Learning with Python" 1,
>>although that would be a bit too harsh.
>
>
> I don't think it is in any way meaningful to compare the scorings for
> books from totally different categories. When I'm looking for a Scheme
> book, I won't buy a Python book instead because it got more stars.
>
In this case comparing a Python book, and Scheme book (like SSICS) is *very*
meaningful, because they *are* in the same category. Both are written as an
introductory CS text for high school, and both are written as an alternative
to Pascal or C++ (in case of How to Think).
How to Think scores 4 stars on amazon, while SSICS scores 3.5.
As I have read both, here's what I can say:
It took me 2 months of hard work (3-4 hours every day) to work through
exercises in SSICS.
It took me 5 toilet sittings (literally :-) to read How to Think, and the
desire (or need) to switch on the computer never appeared.
Now I'm not trying to bash the authors of How to think, they have to be
commended, if for nothing else, then for the fact that the book is under GNU
copylet. That's how I got it :-) The comparison was just to prove that the
reviews of mainstream language books are generally more lenient than those of
Scheme books.
Michael Schuerig
> Michael Schuerig wrote:
>> I don't think it is in any way meaningful to compare the scorings for
>> books from totally different categories. When I'm looking for a
>> Scheme book, I won't buy a Python book instead because it got more
>> stars.
>>
>
> In this case comparing a Python book, and Scheme book (like SSICS) is
> *very* meaningful, because they *are* in the same category. Both are
> written as an introductory CS text for high school, and both are
> written as an alternative to Pascal or C++ (in case of How to Think).
Okay, I don't want to argue this to death. So let's just be happy that
the people writing the Amazon reviews aren't representative of those
responsible for choosing a textbook.
Michael
--
Michael Schuerig Contests between male toads over females are
mailto:schu...@acm.org often settled by the depth of the croak.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/ --John Maynard Smith