Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

norvig.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 117 posts

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#21

Post by CraigJPerry »

>> Learn at least a half dozen programming languages

I'm always surprised by how many people disagree with this; they're on the search for that one language they can use for every task. Or even worse, they think they've found it and their search is over, that's a tragic situation given how spoiled we are for great languages today.

Clojure (STM / refs, vars, atoms & agents), kdb/q (non-loopy array code), Rust (ownership), Go (async done better, although i also really like core.async in clojure too), Python (trio nursery), C++ (asan, msan, tsan).

There's some blogs continually give me good food for thought in this space, all signal no noise:

Eli Bendersky, (every language under the sun) e.g. https://eli.thegreenplace.net/2016/the-expression-problem-an...

Fasterthanli.me (Go, Rust, others) e.g. https://fasterthanli.me/articles/so-you-want-to-live-reload-...

Mechanical Sympathy (Java), defunct but still worth visiting https://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.com/

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#22

Post by vladharbuz »

BossingAround wrote: post #12

The title is a bit misleading to me. 10 years is not to "teach yourself programming," it's to "become an expert in programming." Most people do not want to learn programming to become experts, most people want to learn programming to get a job. After getting a job, some will plateau right away, others will plateau after some time, and others still will keep learning even after years and years. The problem is "how lon…

Everything you say is true, and leads to the oft-repeated "why would I want to learn this complicated programming concept, when my job doesn't require it?". That is, it encourages the idea that employment is the yardstick.

The rub is that this all depends on what you find personally rewarding. If what leads to a rewarding life to you is having a good job, then absolutely, you probably don't need more than a certain amount of depth and knowledge on the subject.

But if depth and knowledge on the subject is what you find personally rewarding, then suddenly putting in all this work makes sense. For many, lifelong learning is what is most rewarding and brings most joy, which one might argue is the most important thing as long as you have a sufficient income.

If you do want to frame it in terms of achievement, it's also obvious that many prolific people in their fields were driven by a passion for what they do — the playful nature of Feynman, Shannon and others comes to mind.

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#23

Post by quickthrower2 »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #21

>> Learn at least a half dozen programming languages I'm always surprised by how many people disagree with this; they're on the search for that one language they can use for every task. Or even worse, they think they've found it and their search is over, that's a tragic situation given how spoiled we are for great languages today. Clojure (STM / refs, vars, atoms & agents), kdb/q (non-loopy array code), Rust (ownersh…

I like the general purpose GC languages like Java JS c# python lisp for most tasks though, and then go with something a bit wilder or low level like Go Haskell Rust Erlang c++ c when needed. Or R/apl for a mathy problem.

Since I enjoy high level programming and the natural experience chicken/egg I never do the low level stuff. Not since Acorn Electron assembler! But I know of it.

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#25

Post by eggdie »

PinkPigeon wrote: post #2

I really like the advice in this. At the same time, I often find it dispiriting to hear "it takes x amount of time", be that 10 years, 10,000 hours or a lifetime. While I understand that it is important to have these metrics precisely to dispel the idea that anyone can learn c++ in any meaningful way in 24h, at the same time I find it harder to start something when I am constantly reminded of the fact that nothing I…

If you are 30ish now, you will be 40ish in 10 years. Might as well develop a new skill or two. Though I completely agree that it should be something you are truly interested in.

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#26

Post by Hendrikto »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #23
CraigJPerry wrote: post #21

>> Learn at least a half dozen programming languages I'm always surprised by how many people disagree with this; they're on the search for that one language they can use for every task. Or even worse, they think they've found it and their search is over, that's a tragic situation given how spoiled we are for great languages today. Clojure (STM / refs, vars, atoms & agents), kdb/q (non-loopy array code), Rust (ownersh…

I like the general purpose GC languages like Java JS c# python lisp for most tasks though, and then go with something a bit wilder or low level like Go Haskell Rust Erlang c++ c when needed. Or R/apl for a mathy problem. Since I enjoy high level programming and the natural experience chicken/egg I never do the low level stuff. Not since Acorn Electron assembler! But I know of it.

JS isn‘t a general purpose language, even though is has been shoehorned to be one.

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#27

Post by z3t4 »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #21

>> Learn at least a half dozen programming languages I'm always surprised by how many people disagree with this; they're on the search for that one language they can use for every task. Or even worse, they think they've found it and their search is over, that's a tragic situation given how spoiled we are for great languages today. Clojure (STM / refs, vars, atoms & agents), kdb/q (non-loopy array code), Rust (ownersh…

Languages evolve and it takes time to learn all the quirks. Usually you need a systems language, a scripting/shell language, and a front-end language. Sure you can get good at the entire stack, but that take time. I would say spend 70% of your time to get shit done, then 30% learning/researching.

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#28

Post by quickthrower2 »

Hendrikto wrote: post #26
quickthrower2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the general purpose GC languages like Java JS c# python lisp for most tasks though, and then go with something a bit wilder or low level like Go Haskell Rust Erlang c++ c when needed. Or R/apl for a mathy problem. Since I enjoy high level programming and the natural experience chicken/egg I never do the low level stuff. Not since Acorn Electron assembler! But I know of it.

JS isn‘t a general purpose language, even though is has been shoehorned to be one.

Yes I mean JS with node

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#29

Post by JrProgrammer »

Hendrikto wrote: post #26
quickthrower2 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the general purpose GC languages like Java JS c# python lisp for most tasks though, and then go with something a bit wilder or low level like Go Haskell Rust Erlang c++ c when needed. Or R/apl for a mathy problem. Since I enjoy high level programming and the natural experience chicken/egg I never do the low level stuff. Not since Acorn Electron assembler! But I know of it.

JS isn‘t a general purpose language, even though is has been shoehorned to be one.

I would say it is. It didn't start as one but over the decades it sure has become a general purpose language.

I can't find a domain where JS wouldn't fit the description. While it may be a bad fit for certain problems, it can still be done.

Re: Teach Yourself Programming in Ten Years (1998)

#30

Post by kbmunchkin »

Aeolun wrote: post #20
BossingAround wrote: post #12

The title is a bit misleading to me. 10 years is not to "teach yourself programming," it's to "become an expert in programming." Most people do not want to learn programming to become experts, most people want to learn programming to get a job. After getting a job, some will plateau right away, others will plateau after some time, and others still will keep learning even after years and years. The problem is "how lon…

> the number of jobs that require the mastery of the craft is not large The number of jobs that benefit from mastery of the craft is essentially equal to the number of jobs. I do not enjoy finding the work of a bunch of people that studied enough to get hired and no more.

They may benefit from it, but they won't pay more if it's not required. So if you expect more compensation for your mastery, you may get passed over for someone with less skill, but the required skill.
Post reply on HN