Hacker News Comments on
University of British Columbia
How to Code: Simple Data
Hacker News Stories and CommentsAll the comments and stories posted to Hacker News that reference this url.
I'd say Racket is a general purpose multi-paradigm language that is well designed.
You can do web development with Racket https://docs.racket-lang.org/continue/
One thing that makes Racket somewhat special is that it can be used to build your own languages (e.g. domain specific languages) with it as it comes with the tools and a community that has experience in it.
There also is a great introduction to programming online course with Racket by Gregor Kiczales https://www.edx.org/course/how-code-simple-data-ubcx-htc1x
⬐ nikofeynthe course is very, very good. it is based upon the book how to design programs.
as a small correction though, it really doesn't teach racket in terms of #lang racket. it uses a succession of teaching languages that are implemented as #lang languages in racket. however, you do pickup pieces of racket (basically racket used as just a scheme), some of the libraries/frameworks like 2htdp, and DrRacket, the ide.⬐ JadeNB> There also is a great introduction to programming online course with Racket by Gregor Kiczales https://www.edx.org/course/how-code-simple-data-ubcx-htc1x
Probably anyone who would be interested knows it without its needing to be pointed out, but I mention in case it entices anyone that Gregor Kiczales is one of the authors of "The Art of the Meta-Object Protocol" (https://www.amazon.com/Art-Metaobject-Protocol-Gregor-Kiczal... ; edited to remove abbreviation).⬐ jimhefferon> The art of the MOP
Please, what does that mean? I program in Racket, and have enjoyed the vidoes but googling this phrase suggests either Prof Kiczales likes to clean floors in an innovative way, or else he is a member of Hip-Hop group. I'm not finding either terribly credible.⬐ AareyBabaThe Art of the Metaobject Protocol https://www.amazon.com/Art-Metaobject-Protocol-Gregor-Kiczal...⬐ sea6earHe is the author of the book The Art of the Metaobject Protocol⬐ dreamcompilerThe MOP is the Meta Object Protocol, which is the meta-language for controlling how CLOS operates internally. How exactly are classes, inheritance, instances, slots, method dispatch, method combination, etc implemented? In most object-oriented languages, you have very little insight into these issues and certainly no control over them. In CLOS you have both, thanks to the MOP. Just one more reason why CLOS is the most powerful OO system ever devised.
I highly recommend Gregor Kiczales‘s CS classes from UBCx as a starting point 
Gregor’s courses are based on the “How to Design Programs” book that Matthias Felleisen at Northeastern, Shriram Krishnamurthi at Brown, and others wrote.
They have a great paper discussing the pedagogical philosophy called The Structure and Interpretation of the Computer Science Curriculum 
I have found that the best way of learning the HtDP approach to program design, at least for me (I find the book itself a bit dry), are the EdX "How to Code" free moocs  . The instructor is fantastic. It completely changed the way I program and design.
If you like the approach and want to learn more, like, for instance, how to extend it to OO design, I list below links to several courses (most, except for the last one, offer enough material to complete them on your own, but I couldn't find any videos) at the university where HtDP's main author, Matthias Felleisen, is tenured (North Eastern). The courses are listed in the order in which they should be taken, and the rationale is explained by the professor in the paper "Developing Developers" :
* CS 2500 - Fundamentals I [https://course.ccs.neu.edu/cs2500/]
* CS 2510 - Fundamentals II - Introduction to Class-based Program Design [https://course.ccs.neu.edu/cs2510/index.html]
* CS 2800 - Logic and Computation [https://course.ccs.neu.edu/cs2800/index.html]
* CS 3500 - Object Oriented Design - Spring 2018 (scaling up the 3 previous courses) [https://course.ccs.neu.edu/cs3500/]
* CS 4500 - Software Development [http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/4500-f18/index.html]
⬐ philonoistI happen to best learn through video lectures more than reading.
Thank you for your effort. I am starting with these.⬐ hackermailmanCould try both, the book (HtDP) is more rigorous than those two MOOCs as they're meant just as an intro where you progress into many more courses (as part of the micromasters on software development) while the book is a full grounding in CS 101. Somebody correct me if wrong but I don't remember any big-O analysis in the MOOCs or the parsing XML chapter, traversing graphs, the content on fixed-size arithmetic, plus the 500 or so exercises the book has compared to the three or four at end of each unit in the MOOCs. For example the sierpinski triangle assignment in the MOOC is pretty straightforward, but in the book you also generate a fractal savannah tree using trigonometry functions that isn't so straight forward, but when you see how they do the generative steps in the book you get that 'eureka' moment learning about Bézier curves. https://jeremykun.com/2013/05/11/bezier-curves-and-picasso/⬐ charlyslAgreed. But I would still recommend those interested to start with the online courses. The reason is that they hammer in the core principles that underlie all of systematic program design, with plenty of hand holding and exercises, and spending the right amount of time on each new concept, which is a lot harder with the book alone. The instructor is so good that in 10 mins one will understand what would otherwise take more than one hour with the book, at least in my case. After completing the moocs one will have a rock solid foundation from which to tackle more ambitious problems, including the ones you mentioned. Only then would I open the book.
Seems to be a newer version of what I did, so my gripes might be fixed. https://www.edx.org/course/how-code-simple-data-ubcx-htc1x
I can fully recommend HtDP for beginning programming - tried various options for my 11 year old. I needed it to involve very little help from me - tried some scratch, mit50x, both which helped but did not spark and sustain interest.
Then we came across https://www.edx.org/course/how-code-simple-data-ubcx-htc1x - love it and does not need any help from me :) planning to move on to https://www.edx.org/course/how-code-complex-data-ubcx-htc2x after that!
edit: corrected typos
⬐ jimhefferon> we came across
There are YouTube videos (I don't know how well they fit with the current course) and they are excellent.⬐ PopeDotNinja⬐ rz2k+1 to learning programming thingies from YouTube videos.Do you mean the online HarvardX CS50 course? I started it when MOOCs were first appearing, and it includes Scratch. It looked very enthusiastic and buzz-worthy to me (which can be very good for a lot of people). However, past students doing a music and dance routine on stage about how exciting it had been, and the first lectures concluding with announcements of pizza parties with Facebook recruiters was too much for me, in that I felt too old.
Alternatively, the MITx 6.002 course on Computational Thinking is also for undergraduate students, but it had a greater focus on programming being integral to the sciences and other fields. I don't recall the the curriculum exactly, but even though the course is an introductory one I think some of the concepts might be a little daunting for a young teenager.
In addition to the UBC courses, another introductory treatment that won't overwhelm to a committed young learner is the DartmouthX C Programming with Linux. One of the instructors, Petra Bonfert-Taylor, taught a very accessible introductory complex analysis course on Coursera, and seems especially interested in first experiences students have with topics so that they are not discouraged. She has written a number of articles on teaching an introductions to new subjects.⬐ tshanmumy bad - yes, I meant the Harvard CS50 course. Thanks for MITx 6.002 and DartmouthX C Programming with Linux - The DarmouthX one would be a good second course if the interest still continues.
SICP, although an excellent book, is not a good introduction to programming.
 thoroughly explains why
[2,3] based on How To Design Programs  is a much better intro; you should read SICP after completing this
DrRacket IDE  + the SICP compt language  and you can start writing it instantly in a well built and maintained environment that’s racket based and pretty fleshed out library wise, certainly nothing compared to Clojure but among the rest, it’s the best (imo), I recall Carmack writing a server in Racket for fun and praising the experience a few years back.
 - https://racket-lang.org
Additionally, if SICP proves too slow going or difficult math wise  you can always use drracket for HtDP  and it’s corresponding misnamed edX course(s)  and later on, PLaI .
I am not an expert, but maybe because of that I believe that I can offer valuable advice to those who are totally new to functional programming (or feel that they are missing something), and want to get the core basics down cold without getting drowned in accidental complexity, do yourself a favor and start with edx's free moocs "How To Code"  , which are based on "How To Design Programs" . After that, you will cruise through the recommended classics above.
If interested in why if you are an FP newbie said material is superior to SICP , read the pdf paper "The Structure and Interpretation of the Computer Science Curriculum" 
⬐ Serow225Thank you so much, that sounds like exactly what I need to make a (successful this time) deep dive into FP. Cheers!
⬐ toshThe course is taught by Gregor Kiczales (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Kiczales) prvsly at Xerox Parc and co-author of the CLOS specification.
For learning how to program, How To Code  (based on How to Design Programs ) is tragically underrated given that it's hands down the best approach to learn how to program (actually, more importantly, how to think about programming) of the many I have looked at. Wish I had known this years ago. Rarely the best learning resources are widely know, so sad.
I decided to give this course a go after reading the eye-opening paper The Structure and Interpretation of the Computer Science Curriculum , and then discovered the edx course in HN  .
Although having programmed for many years it totally changed the way I look at programming; I followed this with the sadly unfinished but still excellent How to Design Classes , which consistently extends this initially FP approach to OO. To check how this approach is language neutral, have a look at Design Recipes in C .
Another neglected but wonderful resource is MIT OCW Elements of Software Construction (the 2008 version) , which, like the above, is centered around design rather than coding.
What did I get out of all this? A systematic approach to programming.
⬐ joshcanhelpThank you for this. I've been programming for a while and always appreciate another perspective on things. Starting with 3 now!⬐ charlysl⬐ kakaorkaIt is great that I have helped you learn about 3, enjoy!Thank you for this valuable advice. I always love to learn more about programming.
Thank you for adding that — I didn't know the edX courses were still online under a different name! The links from wikibob's comment for those interested:
I also love Gregor's teaching style and philosophy. It clicked with me and felt obvious and natural in a way the book never did.
Just wanted to note that HtDP is the best pedegogy for teaching the foundations of CS that I've ever found.
However, the book really needs professional editing.
Instead, take a look at the Intro CS classes from University of British Columbia .
They are taught by the excellent Gregor Kiczales, and directly follow the course structure from HtDP, in an extremely learner-friendly way. Absolutely the best online course I've ever done, Gregor really put an enormous amount of effort into doing this right.
⬐ noelwelshCan you expand on what you found lacking in the book that the online courses provided?⬐ stronglikedan⬐ baldfatIf I understood the parent comment correctly, it's not that the book was lacking anything, it's just that the online courses were more accessible.I wouldn't say it needs an editor. It is dense! Very dense. I started the book 20 times. I would go from page one till I got stuck and then go back and see what I missed. Took forever to get through it but it was the best thing I have gone through learning anything in computer science.⬐ skrishnamurthiAre you looking at the first edition or the second? The first is very dense early on. The second was rewritten to avoid that. Take a look at the second edition instead: I'm confident you'll find it qualitatively very different. https://htdp.org/2018-01-06/Book/
[Disclaimer: co-author, so I'm biased.]
Just to note, while the classes are part of a paid program at EdX, you can enroll in the individual classes for free. I went through the first one a few years ago and really enjoyed it.
You can take a look at the book How To Design Programs (HTDP) . It's similar. The 2nd edition printed book is going to be released soon . There is a paper from the authors of HTDP comparing it to SICP . By the way, there is an couple of online courses at EDX that covers content of HTDP .
The approach in this book is incredibly important and deserves far wider awareness than it has had so far.
Unfortunately the book itself is less than ideal for working through directly, it would benefit greatly from the polish of professional editing.
However, Gregor Kiczales of University of British Columbia has a absolutely top notch class he teaches based on the book. It's available free on EdX: https://www.edx.org/course/how-code-simple-data-ubcx-htc1x Don't be put off like I was at first by the mass-market title ("How to Code").
⬐ tapanjkThank you for the pointer to Gregor Kiczales's EdX course. I am a few modules into this course and find it valuable.⬐ punchclockheroWhere did you find trouble in working through it? I think the design recipe was insufficiently explained, which was fixed in Kiczales' course, but I found it too slow paced and without challenging exercises. The tight integration with the Racket manual is the book's greatest strength IMHO. That and the Bob Ross-like style.