Hacker News Reader

> to introduce early stage students to Scheme before Python, or deep learning before calculus.

This book is part of the classic "Little" series of books starting with the "Little Schemer" which, despite its name and style, is certainly not a novice beginner book.

The later books: "Seasoned Schemer", "Reasoned Schemer", "The Little Typer" and "The Little Prover" are all very advanced books. They share the same style of illustrations and Socratic method, but you will absolutely need to work through them slowly and careful to get value out of them.

The "Little" books are generally targeted to an audience of computer language nerds and pretty much assume you have a solid understanding of programming, familiarity with scheme and the books come from a time when every serious engineer had basic calc knowledge.

These are classics (and I was really impressed with "The Little Learner") but are very serious and challenging texts, that outside the first book, are aimed at advanced readers (and for those readers are true delights).

I think you're overstating the difficulty of Seasoned and Reasoned, both are comfortably undergraduate texts (though Reasoned is a challenging text if it's your first time with that style of programming). We used to teach Seasoned to high school students (advanced high school students, but I'd put them on par with motivated 1st/2nd year college students not more advanced than that). I'd agree with the other three, though, they are advanced texts.

That's the video of my son to prove that Scheme can be a first programming language.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXhsutNKhec

This is how he learned Scheme.

1. Typing 2. Vim through https://vim-adventures.com/ 3. Little Schemer https://a.co/d/0343Ez4v

Don't assume that they would need more things.

This is child abuse. What sort of monster uses vim for s-expression based languages? Everyone knows Emacs is the only sane way to work with them.

I mostly learned with pen and paper and tracing in my mind. We were 18 though

Pen and paper? Excuse me, but real programmers use butterflies.

I suppose butterflies would do for volatile storage but you really need long term memory, such as twig and clay tablet.

What was good enough for the Sumerian’s is good enough for me.

This was just standard procedure at university in 2002. Nothing special. It was me and 200 more people. Pretty sure all the exercises were lifted or inspired by The Little Schemer even thought it took me years to learn about that book.

This is also pretty good

https://www.sscardapane.it/alice-book/

Telling people that they need to learn boring prerequisites before they are allowed to learn the next thing is exactly how you kill motivation. This strategy works if you have a fully mapped out curriculum that is planned as a whole and a societal expectation that you go through the entire thing, it doesn't work for independent learning.

For independent learning, motivation is the key bottleneck and your goal is to make people organically motivated in calculus after learning that their calculus knowledge is lacking.

The first programming language one learns is really not important, most skills are transferable. Racket is an excellent programming language for beginners (this book however is not a good book for a complete beginner because it goes really fast over the Racket introduction).

Python has so many ways of doing things it's a distraction, doubly so when you add all the special sauce for tensor manipulation.

Scheme by comparison has only one way of doing things and gets out of your way.

> "The Little Book of Deep Learning"

I wouldn't recommend it. My copy is dogeared - but for me as a concise mini-reference for a working statistician who has to work with data science people, but not actually implement anything. It's more of a high-level handwavy "these are the concepts involved".

There are quite a lot of precedents for teaching Scheme as a first language.

Java is not a great choice and one I can see would be offputting.

N=1, but I learned scheme first. It was great and I'm doing fine. First scheme then C. Back-to-back.

> (based on the table of contents)

So your opinion is based on just reading the table of contents? I always find it disconcerting when someone writes a multi-paragraph commentary on a work they didn't actually read or see.

I understand that you're commenting on the approach more than the contents, but you're pretty dismissive of it without actually reading the details of how they went about things.

You're not quite judging a book by its cover, but you're not that far beyond that.

> you're pretty dismissive of it without actually reading the details of how they went about things...

I wasn't really trying to be dismissive (other than saying that I personally would not recommend it to a young person interested in programming and deep learning). I was mostly trying to start a discussion about the best way to teach/learn this subject. I hoped to attract more knowledgeable commenters (such as yourself). A day later I still stand by my personal opinion that it's probably best to learn the mathematics first, and to use the lingua franca of the domain.

I'd like to add that, from my perspective, this pseudo-critique was a very small part of my comment. I was mostly trying to say "It's very important and difficult to keep early students' interest. Bravo on the novel approach taken in the book. It's much better than what I had as a college student." That might not have been clear in my comment.

> You're not quite judging a book by its cover, but you're not that far beyond that.

Fair. But there wasn't anything else to read in the submission and I was trying to start a curious conversation. Despite my good intentions it was a bad comment.