seems like an interesting addition to SICP. Anyone here who already worked through it?
In comparison to SICP, HtDP is slower paced and more basic in terms of Computer Science. Not surprising since the intended audience of SICP was MIT undergrads rather than those more toward the middle of the high school academic Bell Curve. The other major difference is that HtDP is a specific methodology utilizing specifications, tests, stubs, and other techniques for writing programs.
In terms of Books as Books, SICP is better written. It has far better type-setting and binding. It is a pleasure to read. And to hold. HtDP has a poor physical format and below average typesetting for a textbook, it's just ugly and awkward all around. HtDP doesn't reflect a Knuthian concern with typesetting and the experience is closer to a bound website than TAoCP. =
TeX is a technology. In the context of my literary criticism, citing TeX and MIT press is analogous to "styled with CSS and hosted on GoDaddy" in regards to a website. TeX is a tool. MIT Press is a good publishing house and its catalog contains quality, but some of its books are still better than others in terms of typesetting (in the sense described). The differences can reflect authors' goals; publishing economics; and just the times (HtDP came about in the era of the commercial web).
Personally, I find the unconventional physical format of HtDP (8" x 9") awkward. It's unbalanced. The pages are too wide. The compensating increase in font size makes the lines so tall that there is low information density on each page. As a reader, the amount of head/eye movement for a disrupts my concentration. The gutters are far too wide. I suppose that the wide gutters were to accommodate the Lambda icon, but these peter out in the first quarter of the book. Because these could be taken away with little effect their inclusion is a decision that could have been revisited and a more conventional layout considered.
The typography is haphazard. Code on page 191 uses san-serif. Code on page 322 is set in four faces; a mix of serif and san-serif, bold, and italics; and boxes. Page 299 has its own notation. Often its complexity obscures the big ideas: on page 278 the unimportant ideas are in bold (local is irrelevant to the local point of f's referent) [1] and the diagram's arrows connect the thinnest term and the thinnest term is typeset in italic.
Please don't take my remarks personally except in so far as I think HtDP is a book worth owning and reading and that the world is better for it existing in its current form. It's useful and supports an important project that I like. Thanks.
[1] Page 279 uses nested boxes to express locality. These have semantics distinct from boxes on page 322.
Nor does being published by a reputed publisher guarantee good typesetting. The story of TeX is itself a good example: TeX came into existence because Addison-Wesley, whom Knuth had chosen specifically for their great typesetting, was compromising on their typesetting for the 2nd edition of TAOCP vol 2 as they moved away from hot-metal typesetting. I'd expect that things are even worse today.
In the case of HtDP specifically, just opening the print edition of the book and flipping through the pages, I can see how its typesetting is indeed below average for a textbook. Look at the ugly table on page 21 (and throughout the book), the uneven typographic “color” on pages like 23 and 31, and just the whole mishmash of mismatched fonts on most pages. The book also has a lot of short paragraphs (two or three lines long), so the choice of indentation for paragraphs in the book is an odd one. A good book designer would have changed a lot of this.
Overall it's perfectly readable, and sure, all typographic subtleties fade away once a reader gets sufficiently engrossed in the content (which is what ultimately matters), but the book is not a delight to hold in one's hands even before that, as in the case of TAOCP. (Probably unfair to compare with something well above average (TAOCP), so compare with SICP which is probably at about the average for a textbook from MIT Press.)
Taking a look at the contents, once a person has read through SICP and understood it, they may find most of HtDP to be boring. It would be much better to read HtDP before SICP than the other way around.
[1] https://cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/fffk-...
I guess it might be a bit strange to think that we don't encounter iteration until the latter part of our second semester but it does make student get really familiar with recursion.
Not sure how I would have handled it if I had to work through it alone but I would at least recommend people to give the book a look.
Even with my past experience, I still needed a ton of help from professors and other students. It's kinda daunting to think about doing it alone, without much help.