Related
I have been programming in a "learn-by-doing" fashion for almost 2 years now and I consider myself fairly good however, I really wish to build a good foundation of Computer Science/Computer Engineering and most people recommend I start off with SICP. (Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)
I wished to know
Is this the best way to go about it?
I know how to code a matrix-multiplication in OpenMP and MPI and I know college level math, is this sufficient to read and appreciate SICP?
Instead of this, can I just spend all my time working on Project Euler instead?
A personal experience: Like you I am trying to learn programming by self-study and I started off with SICP. As I am a ancient historian and archaeologist, I have no background in maths, engineering or real computer science (just good knowlegde in stuff like LaTeX, HTML and CSS). My last lessons in math are now 15 years ago. Although I am working through SICP with a math book at my side the explanations given in SICP are really sufficient to understand the stuff. I really appreciate SICP, it is demanding, but great fun. I also would recommend to buy it as a book, I prefer that from reading on screen.
Sometimes you have to cope with some difficulties because language standards have changed (eg. Running SICP Pattern Matching Rule Based Substitution Code) or the authors assume existing functions which are just defined later in the book (eg. How do I get the functions put and get in SICP, Scheme, Exercise 2.78 and on). As a you always will find solutions or hints on the web this is nothing which should bother you.
If you know any amount of programming you'll likely be better off for it, but it's by no means a requirement when going through the SICP. I'm going through it right now (cover to cover style), and I'm up too section 2.3.3. The biggest road block for me has been how maths based some of the problems can be, as it's been a while since I did maths back in high school. For these problems I've resorted to googling an explanation of the problem and solution. Like programming, maths isn't a requirement either, obviously because I'm still making progress through the book, but I feel it could help at times.
The only requirement you'll honestly need, is a computer and a scheme implementation, I'd recommend MIT scheme or DrRacket.
TL;DR
The only requirement you'll need is a computer, and a scheme implementation, everything else can be learned as you go along.
I'm writing to ask for some guidance on choosing a language and course of action in learning programming. I apologize if this type of question is inappropriate for Cross Validated, please advise me to another forum if that is the case.
I've seen thread after thread with questions from newbies, asking, "What is the best language to start with?" and then it always starts a flame war or someone just answers, "There's no best language, it's best to pick one and start learning it." My question is a little bit more focused than that.
First off, I've been programming my whole life, in very limited capacities. My deepest training was in C++. Whilst in my EECS degree program, I resolved to never be a software developer because I couldn't stand not interacting with people for such long periods of time. Instead I realized I wanted to be a math teacher, and so that is the path I have taken.
But now that I'm well down that path, I've started to realize that perhaps I could develop my own software to help me in the classroom. If I want to demonstrate the Euclidean algorithm, what better way than to have a piece of software that breaks down the process? Students could run that software as part of their studies, and the advanced students might even develop programs for themselves. Or, with an Ipad in hand, why not have an app that lets students take their own attendance? It would certainly streamline some of the needs of classroom management.
There's obviously a lot of great stuff already out there for math, and for education, but I want a way to more directly create things specific to my lectures. If I'm teaching a specific way of calculating a percent, I want to create an app that aligns with my teaching style, not just another calculator app that requires the student to learn twice.
The most I use in class right now is iWork Numbers/Microsoft Excel for my stats class. Students can learn the basic statistical functions, and turn some of their data into graphs.
I have dabbled a bit with R, and used Maple in college. I've started the basic tutorials for OS X/iOS development and have actually made good progress making an OS X app that takes a text string, converts it to numbers, and performs encryption using modular addition and multiplication. I sometimes use Wolfram|Alpha to save myself some time in getting quick solutions to equations or base conversions. I know of MatLab, Mathematica, and recently people have been telling me to check into Python or Ruby. I also know basic HTML, and while it's forgotten now, learned Javascript and PERL in college.
If I keep on the path of Obj-C/Cocoa, I think it will have great benefits. Unfortunately, anything I produced for Mac would only be usable on a Mac, so it wouldn't be universal for all of my students. Perhaps then learning a web language would be better. Second, I'm wondering if the primary use is mathematical, then perhaps my time would be better spent learning Mathematica Programming Language, or R, or something based less on GUI and more on simple coding of algorithms, maybe Python or Ruby?
It seems that Mathematica already has a lot of demos for different math concepts, so why reinvent the wheel is also a question I have. I think overall, it would be good to have more control and design things the way I need. And then, if I do want to make an "Attendance" app or something else, I would already have the programming experience to more easily design something for my iPad or MacBook.
The related question to this is what is a good language to teach to my students? In his TED talk, Conrad Wolfram says one of the best ways to check the understanding of a student is have them write a program. But if Mathematica does the math virtually automatically for them, then I'm not sure that will get the deeper experience of working out logic for themselves, like you do when you're writing C, or a traditional procedural language.
I know that programming takes time to learn, but I also know that at this point, my goal is not to be able to make an app like "Tiny Wings." With the app store ease, some of my work may be an extra revenue stream, but I see myself as more of a hobbyist, and now teacher looking to software development specifically for its ability to help me demonstrate mathematical concepts.
I think I will push ahead with Obj-C/Cocoa for OSX/iOS, but if anyone has some better guidance regarding all of the other available stuff, it would be much appreciated. I don't think I would want to go fully to the web (I like apps), but perhaps someone could suggest a nice way of bridging what I produce in XCode to a universal web version. For example, if you come up with an algorithm in obj-c is it easiest to transition that to ruby and run it online, or is there another approach that works better?
Mathematica is pretty awesome for the first part of your question. I've used the interactive mode (Manipulate[]) for explaining things to my colleges (and myself). It makes really nice dynamic figures and is fairly expressive (although your code can end up looking like line noise). It is very powerful, but it does far less for you than you might think. It's pretty intuitive, which is a good thing for teaching.
You could use Scala if you want an "easy" way to make a domain specific language for teaching. Python seems to confuse people as a first programming language. Objective C seems like a completely random choice to me.
Mathematica then. It's worth the price. But anything that is interpreted and has an interactive shell is probably better than a compiled language. BBC BASIC?
Nothing beats Haskell for general-purpose mathematical programming. The wiki's quite extensive and the IRC channel (#haskell on Freenode) is great for asking questions. If you statically link your binaries on compilation, you should be able to run your programs on just about any system (with a few exceptions, e.g., libgmp).
Haskell code reads (roughly) like mathematical notation once you get the hang of it, so it can really help to tie things together for your students who are motivated to write their own programs. The purely functional style can be beneficial, as well, since it focuses less on I/O and the marshalling of data (perfectly useful in applications, perhaps less so in pure math), and more on the actual creation and refinement of functions and algorithms. You can even compose functions just as you would on paper.
If you want to get really serious, you could also look into Coq or Agda, but those might be a bit much for most classes.
For a Haskell program idea for an educator, check out this link.
A nice list of arguments can also be found at:
Eleven Reasons to use Haskell as a Mathematician and the book The Haskell Road to Logic, Maths and Programming
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I have been researching and playing with functional programming lately, solely to broaden my thinking about programming, because I find thinking "functionally" difficult.
I have downloaded Glasgow Haskell and experimented with that.
What I am wondering is, what is the best platform for Windows to experiment with FP? I would prefer a JVM based approach, but another post on SO has indicated that a real FP language cannot be implemented on the JVM due to a lack of support for tail recursion. What say you?
EDIT: As I've said, I've experimented a fair bit with Haskell; on the advice of one of the answers I've been reviewing the Scala website. Looking over the Scala examples, the code seems more "familiar" (my background is C and Java), but it seems decidedly more OO/procedural and less functional. A huge advantage of Scala would be that it gives me another language tool to use side by side with Java and could become another arrow in my current professional quiver, as opposed to solely being a learning exercise. When I get further into Scala, will the functional aspects become more predominant, or will I tend to end up just writing OO code with some functional influence? In other words, will Haskell challenge my preconceptions harder and faster than Scala?
Check out F#. The CLR has a .tail instruction so you can write F# code with tail calls that don't cause a StackOverflow (the exception, not the web site). Here is an intro video about F# from PDC.
If you really want to learn how to think in a functional way, Haskell is definitely the right choice. Just about every other language out there lets you slip into an imperative style much too easily. Haskell will force you into a functional mindset. I found this indispensible when learning. (You may certainly be more disciplined than I am, of course, but why push your luck?)
When you're satisfied with what you've learned from Haskell (which will be a lot!), you're set to go out and evaluate more liberal functional languages like Clojure or Scala. Or you can stay with Haskell, whose library situation isn't actually all that bad, either. At that point, it's a question of circumstance and personal preference. But in order to make such a choice, having learned how to think in a “pure” functional way first is, I think, vital.
I recommend PLT Scheme and SICP. The language is so simple that you can get on to the important concepts very quickly.
No way is Scala going to bend your mind anywhere near as much as Haskell will. The main reason to choose Scala over Haskell when learning FP is to give yourself a more gentle introduction to the dangerous wilds of monads, functors and higher-order goodness. Scala is great if you're coming from an object-oriented background trying to transition that knowledge into functional-land. It's not so great if you want to just dive head-first into the deep end.
Given what you're asking, I would recommend GHC Haskell. Nothing is going to warp your head quite as much as that. :-) With that said though, I think you should still keep an eye on Scala. There are many aspects of the language which are positively unique, particularly its type system (structural+nominal subtyping == sweet). It's not going to hurt your head quite so much as Haskell, but it will give you an insight into some concepts you may not find anywhere else, particularly the so-called "typeful programming" methodology.
Oh, and to answer the second part of your question (FP vs OO in Scala), I tend to write my code in a functional style within an object-oriented framework. It's a bit difficult to describe, but that's the way it is. Think of it like designing an API from an object-oriented standpoint but implementing everything in a functional style. I keep things immutable and spend a lot of time using higher-order methods, but I do it all within the confines of inheritance and conventional nominal subtyping. Every so often, I'll still write something imperative, but only when it is cleaner to do so than to use the functional style.
Also look at Clojure.
In other words, will Haskell challenge my preconceptions harder and faster than Scala?
Yes.
If you really want to learn, get far outside your comfort zone.
Are you really going to use Scala for production code in the next 3 months, anyway?
Look at Scala. It targets the JVM, interoperates with Java, and has many state of the art functional programming features.
I love using Haskell and GHC. GHC includes an interactive interpreter (GHCI) and has wonderfully helpful error messages. Plus Haskell's one of the best examples of a truly functional language, and not too bad to use once you experiment with it a bit. Plus it has an awesome type system.
ever tried Prolog? ... that'll
?- bend(your_mind).
Yes
?- bend(X).
X = your_mind
It gave me a whole new perspective anyway ...
plenty info out there
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
I've caught the bug to learn functional programming for real. So my
next self-study project is to work through the Structure and
Interpretation of Computer Programs. Unfortunately, I've never
learned Lisp, as I was not a CS major in college.
While SICP does not emphasize the tools for programming, doing the
exercises entails picking a Lisp-like language to use. It seems like
some implementation of Scheme would be the path of least
resistance. On the other hand, I hear of others who have used Common
Lisp and Clojure. It seems to me that Common Lisp or Clojure would be
more likely to be used in production code, and therefore slightly
better for my resume. BTW, I fully get the argument that learning a
language is worthwhile for its own sake, but learning a language that
helps my resume is still a benefit. I'm a capitalist and an academic
about my learning.
If you had to self-study SICP, which language would you pick and why?
Ideally, I would like to use a language that can run on the JVM.
I can certainly work with a language where REPL works with bash
and emacs.
ADDITION: have any of you tried reading SICP without using Scheme? If so, what was your experience like?
Use Scheme. It is one of the simplest and easiest languages in existence, and you will spend very little time learning enough of it to understand SICP. Once you understand SICP, you will see how the concepts apply in any language.
Use DrScheme. As others have said, Scheme is a simple language, and DrScheme is a great environment to use it in which has a lot of support and mediocre-to-good documentation.
Not a direct answer but I expect this information to be useful for anyone working through SICP. Be sure to have a look at the videos here:
http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/classes/6.001/abelson-sussman-lectures/
There are 20 episodes of an hour each. They were presented by Abelson and Sussman in 1986 for Hewlett Packard employees. I put them on my iPod and watched them while commuting. Fascinating.
Also, the full text of the book is available online at http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/
As someone who hires people, I'll tell you that having Scheme on a resume is a good thing. Having Scheme, SML, Ocaml or Haskell on your resume suggests you are a very well rounded programmer, and quite a thinker.
That said, if you are trying for functional programming, why not Haskell instead? Scheme is multiparadigm, it can be OO, Funcitonal, Streams based, or anything else under the sun. This makes it awesome to try out new programming styles and paradigms, but if your goal is strictly functional, it can be a problem. (You will end up writing non functional code and not realizing it.)
I agree that you should just use Scheme. However, if you really have the itch to use Common Lisp or Clojure, I'd pick the latter. Scheme and Clojure are both Lisp-1s, so the code in the book will be more congruent between the two (except for tail calls, but if you understand how to compensate you'll be fine). Common Lisp is a Lisp-2 and will probably obscure the beauty of what SICP is trying to teach you.
The code in the book is Scheme so you'll have to read it anyways - you might as well write it. You might even like it!
To get real value out of the book you'll have to use Scheme. Which implementation of scheme depends on your current environment:
Windows - Dr Scheme (PLT Scheme) - http://download.plt-scheme.org/
Linux - If this is a remote account - you may consider MZScheme (PLTScheme) (http://download.plt-scheme.org/) otherwise you'll want to use Dr Scheme if this is a local instance of Linux.
I think Clojure fits what you want to do just perfectly. It's much more functional than Scheme because the data structures are immutable and it can be very useful as it runs on the JVM. But, be aware that you'll end up learning Scheme anyway to be able to understand the code in the book.
I've caught the bug to learn functional programming for real.
From what I've heard, SICP is about a lot more than just functional programming.
Caveat: I have not read the whole book
Since the examples rely on closures and continuations, you would be better served by using a language with both of those features, otherwise you would need to implement them yourself.
For example, writing a metacircular evaluator in Scheme leverages the fact that Scheme provides closures and continuations.
I used lua when I had a look at sicp
works out pretty well
Use anything but scheme.
While using something else then scheme, you will be encouraged to think more, and avoid temptation to just retype the examples. It is a good thing.
Of course, it has to be similar enough, in lisp-1 sense, so clojure and arc are good to go.
I have used scheme for my self-study. The best way to learn from SICP is to do all the exercises relegiously.
I have used Gnu guile for scheme.
While you could use something other than Scheme, you'd be needlessly adding extra work and possibly cutting yourself off from fully understanding what the book is about. SICP was an introductory programming book. It is a stepping stone to deeper topics in computer science. Getting bogged down in 'translating' from Scheme to CL or Clojure would probably obscure the finer points. That would be a shame, because SICP is truly a gateway to understanding what programming is really about.
Learning Scheme is really straight forward (especially compared to both CL and Clojure) and, in fact, the introductory course as well as the book, assumes the student doesn't know it already. CL and Clojure carry considerable baggage relative to the task at hand.
I hear of others who have used Common Lisp and Clojure.
You should use whatever language most motivates you, but 99% of folks working through SICP are going to use Scheme.
I worked through (most) of it earlier this year, and used Common Lisp, simply because I didn't have Scheme available (don't ask).
As has already been noted, Scheme is a Lisp-1 language whereas Common Lisp is a Lisp-2. There are enough differences between the languages to mean that you have think carefully about translating the code in the book, so it forced me to really get to grips with the material.
but learning a language that helps my resume is still a benefit.
You should try using VB6 or COBOL, then, as there is a lot of billing work out there for it.
I think Scheme would be the natural choice (since it is the "native" language of SICP)
However, since the true value of SICP comes from the concepts rather than the mechanics of the particular language, I think it would be a valuable learning exercise to attempt it in any Lisp-like language. I've personally tried some of the exercises in Clojure and they all translate pretty well.
For those interested there is an ongoing project to create a Clojure translation of SICP.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I like to study languages outside my comfort zone, but I've had a hard time finding a place to start for functional languages. I heard a lot of good things about Structure and Interpretations of Computer Programs, but when I tried to read through it a couple of years ago it just seemed to whiz over my head. I do way better with books than web sites, but when I visit the local book store the books on LISP look kind of scary.
So what's a good starting point? My goal is to be able to use a functional programming language to solve simple problems in 6 months or so, and the ability to move to more advanced topics, recognize when a functional language is the right tool for the job, and use the language to solve more problems over the course of 2-3 years. I like books that are heavy on examples but also include challenges to work through. Does such a thing exist for functional languages?
The Little Schemer teaches recursion really well, and it's fun and simple to read.
I also liked The Scheme Programming Language for a broader introduction into the language.
Try Real World Haskell. It's free online.
SICP is a great book.
This is probably my bias, but I thought ocaml was pretty easy to get into. You have the option of programming in a few different styles until you're completely comfortable. I posted a bunch of links to Haskell and Ocaml references that are books, with examples et cetera that seem right up your alley.
If you prefer Lisp, you can try to power through the 99-problems in Lisp(which you can do in any language, really), or you can watch the lectures from the people who wrote SICP.
Further down the road, get a hold of "Purely Functional Data Structures", as it'll get into the hard-core deep design and considerations you have to take into account in functional languages --it uses ML (which ocaml derived from).
I really recommend "On Lisp" from Paul Graham.
It is concise and very readable even for beginners in functional programming (as I was when I read it). It contains a lot of very short examples, each which helps to understand one single thing.
I often thought reading this book: this is just the language containing exactly the features I ever wanted in other (nonfunctional) languages, but never got. :-(
And this is exactly the book to learn it, always comprehensible, sometimes even funny!
You may get it for free at the author's site!
I really like Thompson’s “Haskell: The Craft of Functional Programming” because it’s well written and Haskell allows an easier start than other functional languages while being completely pure (unlike Lisp or Scheme).
Since there are a bunch of different functional programming languages, it's hard to recommend books. But if you're interested in Common Lisp, recently I've been reading "Practical Common Lisp" by Peter Seibel, which you can check out online for free before dropping your hard earned cash on it. It's a pretty gentle introduction to CL, with great explanations and tons of examples. Seibel's a great writer (example: read the story of Mac,) he's good at keeping you engaged, which is really where SICP falls down, I think. It's just so dry! But while Practical Common Lisp is pretty example-heavy, it doesn't really have challenges to work through, although the examples are mostly designed to let you continue to work and build on them.
Another good book, this one Scheme-oriented: How to Design Programs. (Online)
I haven't had as much time with this book, being more of a Lisper than a Schemer myself, but it's well written, has good explanations and examples, and has lots of exercises to work on. It seems pretty popular in the Scheme crowd.
The Schemers Guide and related software - seriously good stuff
http://www.schemers.com/tsg.html
Check out Introduction to functional programming. It offers a different perspective.
I found The Little Schemer a great, great introduction to functional programming. It's entirely based on simple, bite sized examples which are built up upon as the book goes on.
I learned from Jeffrey Ullman's Elements of ML Programming, which is pretty good. It loses points for being about Standard ML, when OCaml, F#, and Haskell are (seemingly) more popular.
I feel Purely Functional Data Structures by Chris Okasaki is worth a look.
FYI http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/theses/okasaki.pdf
Haskell is a very good functional programming language for beginners. Someone had asked about good resources for Haskell, so I will point you there.
If you are looking for a good book on Functional Programming, I would recommend "Functional Programming: Practice and Theory" by Bruce J. Maclennan.
It is however required that you brush up on your Set Theory and Logic before giving it a read. It includes examples in LISP, Haskell and other languages.
If you have experience with .NET, Expert #F is good.
F# is derived from OCaml. Lisp is more pure as functional languages go.
Real-World Functional Programming (with examples in F# and C#)
I have heard good things about Haskell Functional Programming, but I also found this list of functional programming books at amazon that might be helpful to you.