Scheme and the Art of Programming

Rating:
Summary: The Best Reason Not To Program In Scheme
Review: As an undergraduate, I was subjected to this book by its author.
We were forced to buy it but never used it.
Wow. Let me be blunt and say that this book is quite possibly the poorest CS book I have ever read.
The book is worthless as an introduction because of its meandering structure and poor code comments/explanations.
The writing style is obfuscated and quite patronizing. Additionally, there is no solutions guide for the exercises, which is essential for an introductory book of this nature.

It's also worthless as a language resource because it doesn't touch on intermediate and commonly used concepts with enough detail.

Unlike some other objective CS Programming Languages books, the bias of the author is obvious and painful and he spends most of his time rambling on about how beautiful the language is and how elegant solutions can be contrived in Scheme rather than presenting concrete and illustrative applications.

If you need an introductory Scheme book, buy "The Little Schemer" by Friedman. Don't waste a cent on this book.
Scheme may be a great language but it is not served well
by this book at all.

Rating:
Summary: The Best Reason Not To Program In Scheme
Review: I think some of the other reviewers are unfair with their reviews of this book. Clearly it does not rise to the level of Abelson and Sussman's SICP, but it is an excellent lower-division level book (even at its "advanced" age).

The jacket notes indicates that it was designed to be a stepping stone between "The Little Schemer" and "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs". I believe it achieves this goal admirably, covering the more critical pieces of Scheme in a detailed, well-explained manner.

It could certainly use an update, and I found the rigorous use of the full lambda notation in procedure declarations to be tedious. But these are small annoyances that do not detract from the book as a whole. And the fact that the core Scheme language, which is where this book spends its time, has not changed dramatically in the last decade means that even this older volume provides lots of useful information.

Bottom line is if you are looking for a current definition of the Scheme programming language, you want to pick up Kent Dybvig's "ANSI Scheme". If you are looking for help with SICP, or a good grounding prior to undertaking more advanced programming topics, this is an excellent introduction.

Rating:
Summary: Current best introductory book on Scheme.
Review: No book is perfect...but this book is currently the best available for teaching Scheme to undergraduate CS majors. I have used it several times to teach an introductory course on functional programming (CS 257) at the University of New Mexico. It is more appropriate for a low-level course than Abelson and Sussman--most students find it fairly accessible--yet it is comprehensive and doesn't cheat the best students. Unlike some other textbooks, the point of view is almost purely functional. Mutation and state are not covered until advanced chapters. I will continue to use it until something better comes along.

Rating:
Summary: SCHEME AND THE ART OF PROGRAMMING by SPRINGER & FRIEDMAN
Review: THE IBSN AT THIS SITE REFERS TO "SCHEME AND THE ART OF PROGRAMMING" by GEORGE SPRINGER & DANIEL P. FRIEDMAN (IBSN#007060522x). THIS BOOK HAS A NEW REVISION IN 1995. IT IS COMPLETE AND CONCISE ON SCHEME. BE SURE TO GET THE 1995 MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY EDITION, AND NOT THE 1989 VERSION.

Rating:
Summary: There are better alternatives
Review: This book is a decent effort.
However, there are more interesting alternatives.

If you are totally new to programming, HTDP ( How to design programs )by Shriram Krishnamurthy , published by MIT press is superb. It is expecially useful if you are using the superb
"Dr Scheme" programming envirnoment.

An online version can be read at ...

If you have programmed before, either Abelson and Susman's
SICP or Dorai Sitaram's online "Teach yourself Scheme in fixnum
days" are both excellent.