I would. But I'd like it to be something more than introductory. So, say, at least half the code should include static type, there should be good coverage of readers, expanders, etc.
I think there's a gap for a good language that's both powerful and easy to use. Scala has screwed up with 2.8, being overly-complex, and Oracle (not Scala's fault, obviously). Meanwhile, Python is continuing to expand, but people become frustrated with its limitations. Racket could be the next step for such people, but they don't want an introduction - they want the real meat.
I, definitely, will buy a book about how to write my own programming language in Rakcet.
I has been following Lisp In Small Pieces, but I will love to see something that teach to write different kind of languages like Forth, a OO system in Racket, compile to Javascript, ...
Racket is a great place to start with functional programming. We just spent one-third of the school
year in AP Comp. Sci. playing around with it before starting JAVA. I'd definitely be interested in learning more.
Yes. The only reason I chose Clojure over Racket was the increasing popularity of "Practical programming" books for Clojure. Let's see Practical Common Lisp in Racket?
I think all the comments are going into the survey -- there are over 40 so far. I'll summarise snd post to HN when the survey finishes. Thanks to anyone reading this who took the time to answer and/or up-vote this submission!
I think there's a gap for a good language that's both powerful and easy to use. Scala has screwed up with 2.8, being overly-complex, and Oracle (not Scala's fault, obviously). Meanwhile, Python is continuing to expand, but people become frustrated with its limitations. Racket could be the next step for such people, but they don't want an introduction - they want the real meat.