Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008) • Hacker News Board

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#111

Post by jfoutz » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 12:15 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #98

SloopJon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 relev…

Interesting. After reading Code complete (2nd) I felt that I didn't get much out of Pragmatic programming either. One question that keeps popping into my mind is what books and in what order should one feed an inexperienced junior to turn them into a mature software engineer.

I don't think there's a curriculum you can set up. For me, the best books were books that talked about problems i was having at the time.

For example, my biggest take away from Code Complete was the stupid slow but easy to test implementation of the excel calculation engine. I was working on a print system at the time, building a stupid system and a fancy system and comparing the results gave me a lot of insight about what was wrong with the fancy system.

Me personally, i got a ton out of the lisp books PAIP, SICP, On Lisp, and even the CL spec. Thinking about something in terms of stream processing or unification from the various prolog implementations would get me started on answers to problems i was facing (they never required unification).

Just blindly handing out reading, i'd probably give people _The Phoenix Project_. Most organizations are a mess, and new programmers don't understand that. The down side is, new programmers can't do much about it. It can help explain why you do some painful stuff though, like on call or code reviews.

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#112

Post by dudul » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 12:56 PM UTC

I missed the part where the author provides a reference/source to claim that developers don't really read some books.

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#113

Post by leksak » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:12 PM UTC

blub wrote: post #97

johan_larson wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with the design patterns books (including the GoF one) is that in the end they didn't have much influence. Think of how few of their patterns have become part of the vernacular of our field: Iterator, Singleton, Factory, Adapter, and maybe one or two more. It's not a long list. If you insist on talking in terms of design patterns, you are going to have to explain nearly all of them to your listeners. Inso…

Some patterns have become parts of languages and libraries as those evolved. Subject-observer lives on in Qt's signals and slots and in general any signal/slot library. Command is basically operator() or std::function in C++. Null object is a useful little trick. I'd also add Facade and Strategy to your list. It's indeed not long but it does save some time when talking about design and various potential solutions. Th…

I think Game Programming Patterns is an excellent read for learning patterns

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#114

Post by damontal » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:48 PM UTC

OskarS wrote: post #108

sireat wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously claiming that you have read both TAOCP and CLRS cover to cover? This is precisely the claim that the original article is talking about. The article is not claiming that TAOCP and CLRS are bad books. The article simply argues that more people claim to have read the books than actually have read them. Most of us have read "some" of TAOCP and CLRS. These are fantastic but rigorous reference works. Gene…

I read most of both of TAOCP and CLRS when I was in my late teens and early twenties. I couldn't follow the most difficult mathematical bits, but I don't think it's THAT unusual to have worked through most of both of them.

TAOCP has four volumes. Its not just a single book. Did you work through all four volumes?

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#115

Post by Retric » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:51 PM UTC

OskarS wrote: post #108

sireat wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously claiming that you have read both TAOCP and CLRS cover to cover? This is precisely the claim that the original article is talking about. The article is not claiming that TAOCP and CLRS are bad books. The article simply argues that more people claim to have read the books than actually have read them. Most of us have read "some" of TAOCP and CLRS. These are fantastic but rigorous reference works. Gene…

I read most of both of TAOCP and CLRS when I was in my late teens and early twenties. I couldn't follow the most difficult mathematical bits, but I don't think it's THAT unusual to have worked through most of both of them.

In high school read/studied Ivan Hortan's beginning C++ one summer which what an awesome foundation for collage programming courses. Now, I thought it as well worth it and recommended that book to several people. But here is the thing it took most of a summer, and I stopped around page 700 or so. Further I am not recommending someone read it, I am suggesting they spend a few months studding C++.

TAOCP is not a book it's 1/3 of a masters degree in paper form. Suggesting someone read it is like sugesting they get a MS useful, bit not quite the same as recommending a normal book.

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#116

Post by dmalvarado » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:56 PM UTC

Who claims to have read a book they didn't? "Yea I read that." (No I didn't). That's straight lying.

I think what's more likely is, someone will say, "YOU should read this book. It's awesome." The implication being, the suggestion comes from first-hand experience.

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#117

Post by chatterbeak » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 1:59 PM UTC

This is a strange, elitist, attitude. When someone tells me he read a book, I have no reason to doubt him.

That being said, my go-to book I recommend for non-specialists who want to delve deeper into Computer Science is SICP. And yes, I've read it. It's telling that it's not on his list.

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#118

Post by chatterbeak » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 2:01 PM UTC

AJRF wrote: post #88

nanolith wrote: post #23

I'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…

"I've read the books on both of those lists, among many others." - I knew this would be the top comment. HN is fast becoming a parody.

I think I can write a Perl Script to generate the top comments on any YC thread.

The other ones, applicable to all are:

"This site doesn't work with NoScript on"

and

"It's paywalled!"

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#119

Post by bogomipz » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 2:10 PM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #33

Godel_unicode wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I genuinely feel bad for people who have only used the learnings from these books in job interviews. Either they've never had to work on a really Hard Problem, or worse they have tried to solve such a problem without the hard-won lessons present in these books.

> a really Hard Problem I've heard senior recruiters express skepticism about candidates who say they're into "Hard Problems." Experienced engineering managers usually hear that phrase when you're looking for a lifestyle and you don't really care what the application is. For example, "I have no qualms that your business arbitrages nonconverting clicks from bots and sketchy web traffic (i.e., 99% of the Internet) into…

""I have no qualms that your business arbitrages nonconverting clicks from bots and sketchy web traffic (i.e., 99% of the Internet) into Google AdWords revenue, using up a Google customer's ad budget until the customer has barely made a profit."

Can you explain what this business model is and how the arbitrage works? Is this SEO gaming? Thanks

Re: Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)

#120

Post by bbarn » Sat, Oct 15, 2016, 2:16 PM UTC

nanolith wrote: post #23

I'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…

Thanks for the review. I just ordered both.