diff --git a/src/pages/blog/en/racket-1.md b/src/pages/blog/en/racket-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6ba5242
--- /dev/null
+++ b/src/pages/blog/en/racket-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+---
+layout: ../../../layouts/BlogLayout.astro
+title: My problem with learning Racket (and lisps in general)
+description: Why can't I find something like this?
+pubDate: "2024-11-06"
+tags: ["programming", "learning", "lisp"]
+image: 
+    url: ""
+    alt: ""
+    caption: ""
+---
+
+For the last month I've been wanting to learn a lisp, and
+naturally the question of "which one to choose" came up.
+After an intensive search on the most authoritative pages
+about lisp (reddit & hn) I learned that there are these
+lisps available for learning:
+
+## Common lisp
+
+I've seen that common lisp is well regarded by almost everyone.
+However, it is confusing to not have a de-facto implementation.
+
+I choose to try out SBCL and to follow Practical Common Lisp.
+And I've come to realize that either I'm blind, or there is no
+documentation on common lisp. Like, I cannot go to a page
+for CL or SBCL and see the stdlib. I have to search google
+for how to do every little thing. Literally unusable.
+
+
+## Scheme
+
+I've read that scheme is a good lisp, but due to its academic
+nature is really barebones. I don't want to implement a stdlib,
+I just want to learn lisp by solving some problems. So this is
+a no.
+
+
+## Clojure
+
+JVM 🤮🤮🤮
+
+
+## Racket
+
+Racket seemed like the best choice for learning lisp. It is
+modern, has extensive documentation and there is a single
+implementation.
+
+So, I learn some chapters of the racket guide, and went on
+to solve some Advent of Code.
+
+## wtf?
+
+And I ran into a problem immediately. The racket interpreter's
+error reporting is useless.
+
+I had code like this:
+
+```racket
+(define (split-string input)
+    (define letters (string->list input))
+    (define first-letter (first letters))
+    (define last-letter  (last letters))
+    ; other operations
+    dummy-return)
+```
+
+This code basically takes a `string` as input, converts it
+into a `list`, and gets the first and last element of the list.
+
+So, what happens if I pass to it an empty string `""`? Obviously
+it breaks. However, how the racket interpreter reports this error
+is the problem.
+
+See, any other language will tell you where this thing failed.
+Something like `error on line 3: indexing element 0 of an empty list`.
+I'm not asking for Rust-level error reporting (which should be
+the baseline for error reporting), I'm not asking for a stack trace,
+I'm not even asking for the column where the error happened.
+I just want to know on which line it failed.
+
+What does racket give me?
+
+```bash
+split-string: contract violation
+ expected: (and/c list? (not/c empty?))
+ given: '()
+ context: my/file/name:1:0
+```
+
+It tells me there is an error __somewhere__ on the `split-string`
+function. Where? Who knows. Somewhere inside.
+
+And whats worse is that, if this function is called by other functions,
+and those by other functions and so on, racket tells me the error
+is on the outer most function. Really?
+
+
+## The straw that broke the camel's back
+
+Normally, I expect better tooling for a language. I expect the language
+to have auto-complete, warnings/errors on my code editor (neovim btw),
+inline documentation, and so on. It's not a deal breaker however.
+I am totally find writing code on notepad if there is at least documentation,
+and racket REPL makes experimenting a lot easier.
+
+But for a dynamically typed language to have error reporting this bad...
+A dynamically typed language **must** have good error reporting,
+because otherwise it's almost imposible to find where errors are.
+And racket is not a toy language made by a hobbist on their free time.
+
+Honestly, at this point I might have to just use clojure. It's almost
+impossible to program on a dynamic language with bad error reporting.
+
+
+