I read EOPL independently in high school, and I thoroughly enjoyed it because it had a good balance between theory and practice. I would consider Types and Prog

I read EOPL independently in high school, and I thoroughly enjoyed it because it had a good balance between theory and practice. I would consider Types and Programming Languages to be theory-based, EOPL in the middle and SICP to be practice-based. (My personal order was SICP -> EOPL -> TAPL) It's a great exercise to implement[0] the languages from EOPL. I think it fits a lot better in a statically typed language like Haskell (the parsing can be done with parser combinators), since they essentially have to re-create ADTs with macros in Scheme, when they could be easily embedded into the host language. The effectful interpreters could have their effects encapsulated in a monad transformer stack. [0] https://github.com/siraben/eopl https://github.com/siraben/eopl