Does anyone have a comparison between this and Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective? I was planning to read that book and this looks like a similar resource.
Computer Science from the Bottom Up
21–30 of 104 posts
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
We had one called "Systems Programming" that was a whirlwind intro to everything Unix (6 weeks on bash, 6 weeks on C, 6 weeks on Perl, a mishmash of SSH and everything-is-a-file and Unix-philosophy, etc) We had another called "Operating Systems" that focused on things like concurrency, building a really basic memory pager, etc (mix of C and Java I think) And we had one other called "Networking" that was sort of along…
Nice, and now that I think of it we did have an operating systems class. I know better than to trust 25-year-old memories.
My undergrad CS degree I don't think contained any sort of OS course, other than maybe a survey of them but there was a graduate level class that was required for any higher degree. I took it before I graduated with an undergrad because it was interesting, and it was quite extensive as I recall. That was well over 20 years ago, however.
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#23This seems highly focused on systems; I wouldn't call it representative of "Computer Science" as a whole. Only maybe 2-3 of the classes in my computer science degree were focused on this kind of stuff. Still seems like a good resource, just perhaps mislabeled.
Years ago, systems was the general purpose CS degree. I guess it is/was classical CS. Today, there are many specialties (data, security, algorithms, etc.), but many top-ranked CS schools still offer a traditional systems degree.
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#24Past discussions with comments (including the author addressing the naming issue): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13249675 (2016, 157 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21903007 (2019, 77 comments)
Also
Computer Science from the Bottom Up - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7611093 - April 2014 (44 comments)
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#25Looks more like computer engineering than computer science.
Yeah, that kinda bothered me too.
>Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#26This seems highly focused on systems; I wouldn't call it representative of "Computer Science" as a whole. Only maybe 2-3 of the classes in my computer science degree were focused on this kind of stuff. Still seems like a good resource, just perhaps mislabeled.
The reason for the name seems to be because of its focus on
systems. I do agree that the way it's labeled isn't the
best, but it's not trying to be representative of all Computer Scionce.
In fact, it seems to specifically be trying to have a different focus than a cs degree:
> This book aims to move in completely the opposite direction, working from operating systems fundamentals through to how those applications are complied and executed.
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#27Does anyone have a comparison between this and Computer Systems: A Programmer's Perspective? I was planning to read that book and this looks like a similar resource.
CSAPP is like the theory behind low-level (C/C++/etc) programming. This is more like a sketch of the concepts behind operating systems. CSAPP is also much longer and more technical. Where they overlap CSAPP is going to be much more complete.
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#28I think these CS books should start with a philosophical look at what kind of thing computation actually is, rather than diving straight into UNIX file system structures with barely any context. But I guess that would be computer science from the top down.
Good book on that is Introduction to the Theory of Computation by Michael Sipser. One could argue it's from the very bottom up, not much practicum lies in that text.
This book was one of the best parts of my CS degree. It's the only textbook which I read cover-to-cover because the writing and narrative were so cohesive. Highly recommend.
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#29In the beginning, bell labs invented the transistor...
I mean there were vacuum tubes and relay machines before that :)
IMO relays are a bit easier to understand than transistors because it's a bit easier to understand how to implement various logic gates with them with only very basic knowledge of electronics.
Also, very satisfying clicking sounds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZyFSrNyhy8&t
Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up
#30I think these CS books should start with a philosophical look at what kind of thing computation actually is, rather than diving straight into UNIX file system structures with barely any context. But I guess that would be computer science from the top down.
I am a theorist and I would say, that the bottom - as it is the foundation - is mathematical logic. And you start from there.
Baffingly enough: All this theory is easily understood with 7th-grade math.
Approaching from some specific piece of engineering is surely top-down.