The biggest downside of Racket is that you can't build up your environment incrementally the way you can with Common Lisp/Sly. When you change anything in your source you reload REPL state from scratch. After CL it feels incredibly limiting in a Lisp. Incremental buildup is so valuable, if I wanted to do any Lisp work again I'd reach for CL before Racket just for this reason.
BTW, the book is _great_. Quick, easy to get through, very easy to understand, and teaches you everything from soup to nuts. If you're familiar with lisps you can get through the book in two weeks. It's then easy to get into any deep learning tutorial or project you want, or even start implementing some papers. The book manages not to water down the material despite not using any math at all. Although if you know some linear algebra or multivariable calculus you'll appreciate the beauty of the field more.
The appendix on autodiff is a bit rushed, in my opinion. But in all fairness, the number of pages would probably need to be doubled to give a proper exposition of autodiff.
I don’t quite understand… I’m using Racket in emacs/SLIME and I can eval-last-sexp, regions, etc.
EDIT: ok with geiser and geiser-racket incremental state buildup works really well. I rescind my objection!
I think no Lisp is a "true" Lisp if it doesn't provide two critical components of the Lisp experience:
- Live Images
- REPL-driven development
That's why Clojure/Racket and even Scheme are Lisp-y but not a true Lisp. The only true Lisp languages I've found are CL and Janet.
I have really been enjoying writing it! Paredit and SLIME are addictive.
> ...real life...
(≠ "LeetCode" "real life")https://htdp.org/2024-11-6/Book/index.html
More accesible than SICP, highly recommended