[klibertp]

> Seems like the most common answer to this might be SICP

Please don't. SICP is beautiful and all, but it's neither an intro nor practical/immediately useful. There's a lot of enlightenments to be had by reading it, but they have very little to do with Racket specifically. IMO, it's a bad book if your purpose is learning Racket.

> You might, as a novice coming to Racket, find "Realm of Racket" to be more approachable

Or, as an experienced programmer, be bored to tears by the slow pacing and didactical style. It's a great intro to programming and to Racket, but more focused on the former, which makes it ill suited for experienced devs who want to learn Racket.

[BMarkmann]

Please don't what, have an opinion?

I read SICP as an experienced programmer and I didn't find it impractical at all; in fact, it kickstarted my interest in other lisps.

I read Realm of Racket as an experienced programmer (after knowing Common Lisp and Clojure well) and it was entertaining and, yes, a gradual introduction to Racket.

I'm sorry if you disagree, but was answering the question that was given with a couple thoughts that might be beneficial. I'm glad you feel confident enough in your interpretation of what was being asked and the OP's personal background and motivation to flame someone else without, I don't know, answering the question.

EDIT: I see you did answer him below, but my general response is still valid.

EDIT 2: Your response makes more sense given context. Sorry I got internet angry a little too quickly.

[klibertp]

And on a more general note - let's leave the misunderstanding to the separate thread - I'm glad you liked the books! I'm not saying you can't enjoy them - far from it - but if your goal is to just learn Racket quickly (where I interpreted "experienced dev" as "short on time working adult") then they are not the best resource for that. SICP is not even about Racket at all and RoR includes a lot of introductory material you wouldn't need. Instead of learning by accident, ie. reading weakly related material and hoping that an understanding will somehow form (which seemed to be default mode in education), I prefer using materials which are strictly on topic and are dense enough to be efficiently absorbed, but not so dense that it takes a day to go from one page to another. And to that my answer is: Wiki, tutorial&cheatsheet and the docs.

What is obvious is that YMMV - I'm just saying what I'd do if I wanted to efficiently learn Racket today. That's it.

[BMarkmann]

Yes, I totally agree it comes down to YMMV. Everyone's learning style is different -- some like dense documentation, some like book-style progressive walkthroughs. I certainly didn't learn CL by reading the HyperSpec, for instance... :-)

[klibertp]

Yeah, that's why I included the "but not too dense" part ;) Personally, I actually did learn Common Lisp mostly from HyperSpec (plus reading code - I used StumpWM for a while and wanted to script it), but at that point it was my 4th Lisp (after PLT Scheme/Racket, Emacs Lisp and Clojure) and I was well prepared for it, I think, because of my focus in PL research (hobbyist). I certainly wouldn't say that HS is the way to go for new CL programmers without special preparation.

But, Racket reference docs are not a language definition like HS, RNRS or the Dylan book. The tutorials especially are quite friendly, but the reference is also full of examples, overviews, summaries and introductions, along with the links to the Guide - which can further help in comprehending the content (but only if needed, otherwise they stay out of the way). They're basically amazingly well done and I think more people should read them, if only to learn something about how to write docs and technical prose in general... :)

[klibertp]

My "please don't" was directed at the potential learner as in "please don't use this particular book if all you want is learning Racket" - not at you, in any way.

Also, I said it's a bad book for learning Racket In My Opinion. Of course it's all based on opinions and I just presented my own. No flame intended, at all.

EDIT: sure, no problem :)