Hi Ben, If you want to practice and need some fun problems to work on, I recommend going to projecteuler.net and solving problem #1. Then read the forum to see how others solved it. Solve problem #2... rinse and repeat.
By the time you get to problem #60 you will have built a little toolbox of reusable functions (admittedly mostly in the number-theory area) and been exposed to many different ways to solve problems and many different programming languages. Regards, -joe On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Ben Duan <yfe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Neil, > > Thank you very much for your explanation of the terminologies and your > suggestions. > > Sadly, I’m just the person who has little practical programming > experience. I started learning programming seriously about a year ago. As > I’m not coding for a living, I don’t have to write much code. And every > time when I encountered some problems while coding, I thought that maybe I > hadn’t got enough knowledge to start real coding, and a new book might > solve my problems. So I just stopped coding and started a new book. Then I > ended up spending much more time reading than practicing. > > Recently I realized that I was wrong, and started doing some small > projects. > > But I have a question here. If I hadn’t read these books, I would be just > doing the ‘rote practice’ you’ve mentioned, and write FORTRAN code for > every programming language because that’s how I was introduced into > programming. Then how can I know whether or not I could improve on some > aspect if I don’t keep reading and learning? > > Thanks and regards, > Ben > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org>wrote: > >> Ben Duan wrote at 07/21/2013 10:25 PM: >> >> In this mailing list, I can always find some concepts which are not >>> familiar to me. For example `monad' and `parameterize'. I don't know how to >>> learn about these kind of advanced programming skills systematically. So >>> I'm asking for your suggestions on where I can go next. >>> >> >> "Monad" is a concept from pure functional programming that is almost >> never used in Racket (although people have implemented monads using Scheme >> and Racket). If and when you decide you want to learn pure functional >> programming, I suspect you'd take a detour from Racket at that time, and >> spend at least a couple months working through a book and language designed >> specifically for functional programming, like Haskell. >> >> "Parameterize" is both a generic term you'll find in discussions of many >> languages, and "parameterize" is also the name of a special syntactic form >> in Racket that has very narrow meaning, compared to the generic meaning. >> Here's one practical view of Racket parameters, being imprecise with >> terminology... A Racket parameter, in the sense of "make-parameter" and >> "parameterize" (you can look them up in the searchable Racket >> documentation) is a way to implement a mutable variable that is global >> and/or has dynamically-scoped bindings. Changes to these variables can be >> scoped dynamically within a "parameterize" context, and also scoped within >> threads. Use parameters for mutable global state that you don't want to >> keep passing around as arguments between procedures, and for >> thread-specific state that you don't want to keep passing around. Use >> "parameterize" when you want to establish a new dynamic scope for a mutable >> variable, such as for thread-local state, or if you with to temporarily >> override a value within the same thread. >> >> >> >>> I have read some commonly recommended books like: >>> >> >> You've read a lot already. I don't know how much practical programming >> experience you have, but this reminds me to make a suggestion for anyone >> reading this email who is learning programming and doing a lot of reading... >> >> If someone has access to a computer, then my suggestion at this point is >> make sure that they are spending more time practicing programming than they >> are spending on reading. >> >> By reading books and doing problem sets only, and reasoning about >> programming in their head atop that, then someone might be able to >> understand programming theory as a mathematician might. But if they want >> intuition and insight into how to build and evolve sustainable systems in >> the real world, then I'm not aware of any substitute for practical >> experience in programming. >> >> Also, when you're getting programming experience, my suggestion is *not* >> to do it as rote practice, like trying to master just the mechanics of >> playing a particular piece on a musical instrument. Instead, I suggest >> doing programming as experiments in method, like a creative performer or an >> innovative composer, and pick up experience with the rote mechanics along >> the way. You will wind up with mistakes, but you will learn from them, and >> you will also wind up with wins you would not have if you did not >> experiment. Programming has a lot less material available to learn via >> books than, say, medicine does, and you can experiment without killing any >> patients (just delete the patient's file, quietly, and no one need know). >> This is all hand-wavy, but I think it's a way to think about programming >> that results in a greater mental toolbox. It beats treating programming >> like a clerical skill, or pretending that programming is understood by >> anyone better than it is. >> >> Neil V. >> >> > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
