Hi r/scheme, my little brother (11) is interested in programming. Since he doesn’t know what he wants to make yet, I feel like scheme could be a good first language to learn the basics, paired with “The Little Schemer”, a book I worked through when I was younger that I feel like he’d like and would teach him some solid CS foundations. Any input on this?

  • jason-reddit-public@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    I was a “lab assistant” one semester so I got to see first hand people learning Scheme. Some people really get messed up by all the parenthesis which I’m sure detracted from their experience. Therefore if you go this route, I would suggest first spending some time with him learning how to setup and use a smart code editor with parenthesis matching, sexp indentation, sexp motion commands, etc. These are of course useful for any language but critical for Scheme programming. It probably didn’t help that (at the time at least) most scheme implementations had suboptimal error messages (for example, they don’t have line/column numbers).

    • MasterSkillz@alien.topOPB
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Yeah I went through setting up DrRacket and stuff like that when I worked through Scheme the first time around, I’ll know what to show him. The Little Schemer uses functions that aren’t really in Scheme, like (atom?)

      • jason-reddit-public@alien.topB
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah “atom?” doesn’t appear in r7rs. You could probably get away with (not (pair? x)) [[ unless '() isn’t an atom - its been a while! ]]

        Hopefully there wouldn’t be too many of those. 🤷‍♂️

        • raevnos@alien.topB
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          (define (atom? x) (not (pair? x))) is the same as Common Lisp atom, but I’ve seen some Scheme texts that use versions that treat '() as not an atom. Can be confusing if you have one definition in mind and look at something that uses the other.

          • jason-reddit-public@alien.topB
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            If (not (eq? '() #f)) then it may make sense to treat '() as non-atomic. “atomic?” would then be a cheap version of “list?”.