What does it say about me if I haven't read any of those books?
It says that you have not exhausted the wonders of this world, and that good times are ahead of you.
Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
71–80 of 169 posts
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#72Is there a good alternative to "Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools"? I've been programming for a few years now and I'm looking to more formally educate myself in general computer science. I've been told having a good grasp on compilers and interpreters can be useful for a wide variety of problems. So far "Language Implementation Patterns" looks like it might be a promising alternative.
I highly recommend Modern Compiler Implenentation in ML by Andrew Appel (he is also an inventor of a number of important modern compilation techniques).
I also rather enjoyed Crafting a Compiler. I found the explanations and excercises to be much more practical and enjoyable than the dragon book, but the code authors present is mostly garbage and full of global variables, state mutations and design pattern heavy. Ignore the code and do the excercises yourself.
I always found the Dragon book to be too parsing-heavy which gets boring quickly. The books I listed spend far less time on parsing and much more on code generation and optimization which I find more enjoyable. YMMV.
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give SICP a try. Then, pick up the dragon book if you enjoyed SICP. It's a different experience after that.
Thanks. I've heard good things about SICP and that it pairs well with "The Little Schemer" and "The Seasoned Schemer".
Also Essentials of Programming Languages (also by Dan Friedman), which talks specifically about language design and compilation/transformations.
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#74> I've read all of these books myself, so I have no difficulty believing that many moderately competent programmers have read them as well. If you're interested enough in programming that you're reading this blog, you've probably read most, if not all of the books in this list That is some gross arrogance on full display right there. If you're as good as me, surely you've read all these books. Any other books... flaw…
I don't believe the author intended to insult you. It's very likely you do know much of what those books have to offer. It's also possible you think about the topics in those books in a different manner. One of the benefits of a group of programmers reading the same book is the shared language.
He said "arrogant" not "insulting".
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#75I've read the books on both of those lists, among many others. Not because these are all required reading, but because I've had a long career and I've fought to continually improve my knowledge in Computer Science. It seems rather arrogant of the author to decree that one list is canon and the other list is not. Each of those books has its use. Does this mean that someone needs to read any of those books to be good a…
He praises almost all of the books on the second list, he just thinks a large percentage of the people that recommend them haven't read much of them. He also doesn't seem to make the claim that the first list represents "canon" and that the second list represents "non-canon". The first list is a list of great books that are easily understood by most students. Many of the books on the second list are far more advanced…
> he just thinks a large percentage of the people that recommend them haven't read much of them.
Donald Trump just thinks a lot of things.
The author never made a valid argument, but lot of people up-voted, an indicator of the growing friction between the plutocrats and the plebeians.
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#76I think those books have a specific time* in people's careers. My first real programming job, a couple years in i got a large project. I'd go home and flip through the design patterns book every day. Some days, rereading the introduction, some days rereading patterns. The project came out pretty well. If i'd gotten a C++ job instead, i'd probably have torn up the C++ programming language book. My copy is fairly worn,…
> I think those books have a specific time in people's careers.
Agreed. Code Complete gave me a huge boost as a liberal arts refugee in computing. Having given away my copy, I bought the second edition, thinking it would be worth a reread. Not so much. Pragmatic Programmer didn't do much for me either, probably because I read it too late.
On the flip side, plodding through TAOCP just because? Better to read the relevant chapters when you've got an actual project to chew on.
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#77Wow I've read many more of the books in the second list.
The second list should also include Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs.
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#78Is Code Complete still worth reading for a working developer?
I think so. A lot of the recommendations are based on research and, at the very least, it helps strengthen knowledge that you may already have. I learnt a lot from Code Complete when I read it.
It is also an easy read - its not a hard academic book.
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#79Is Code Complete still worth reading for a working developer?
I read the first edition (haven't read the 2nd yet) in 2000, and it really shaped the way I've written code since then, even though I work primarily in untyped web languages like Ruby and CFML.
Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
#80Cue the circus of people who argue over the contents of this list, despite having actually used the learnings from books only in job interviews. There are so many developers (like your peers at work) who have literally read none of these books. In a Darwinian sense, isn't that evidence that there's nothing so special about these texts for what you do? Skip the books and just memorize what's on Interview Cake. I love…
You should comment more.
I have found people are just not honest with themselfs. It's more than denial? I've never quite figured it out.
In graduate school, I saw students going along with whatever the instructor spewed out. Even when I knew they didn't believe what they were being taught.
And the unethical things I have seen people do in the name of making a buck. Wow--that's a fat book.
I have seen people exaggerate what they did in order to get that comfortable job. The truth is so hard to pull out of most people. And I get it--a lot of you don't want to rock the boat, but this is an annoymous site?
The truth should come out here? And, I know, a lot of you are geniuses. Some of us just want to cut to the meat. No BS.