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

The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

dev-books.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 256 posts

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#241

Post by pc86 »

crispyambulance wrote: post #56
jonmb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you say something like "nice affiliate hack" it comes with an implication that it's wrong, because a lot of people on the Internet try to trick others into clicking their affiliate links.

Its OK to use the word "hack" on "hackernews"... negative connotation is not automatic here !

The English language does not change because this is HN and everything thinks their IQ is 3 standard deviations above the mean.

"Nice _______ hack" has an obvious and blatant negative connotation, particularly when it's on its own like that. The implication is that this is just a way to make a few bucks. That's not what the commenter meant, thankfully, but that's only known after further explanation.

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#242

Post by campervan »

pc86 wrote: post #240
dvt wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because GEB is, in many regards, pop-science (or pop-math). It's a fun introductory read, but it won't really (and by really I mean rigorously) explain (and by explain I mean prove) much of anything. Any reference to it in the context of academia is a bit on the nose. It's like trying to study piano and saying you love Mozart. Like, yeah, okay.

> it won't really (and by really I mean rigorously) explain (and by explain I mean prove) much of anything Sentence would be a lot shorter if you had just said "it won't rigorously prove much of anything."

Yeah, who needs nuance anyway? Just communicate using pure logic next time.

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#243

Post by btilly »

JelteF wrote: post #79

Although not directly development related. The most impressive book I've had the pleasure of reading is "Gödel Escher Bach: An eternal golden braid" (also known as GEB) from Douglas Hofstadter. It's hard to explain what it is about exactly, but it contains ideas and concepts from mathematics, computer science, philosophy and conscience. All of it is explained in very clear and interesting way. I can recommend it to a…

My experience is that non-mathematicians like to have GED on their coffee tables as a conversation piece. The related book that mathematicians like is https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Experience-Phillip-J-Dav.... (High school math is enough to enjoy it, but the more math you have, the more you'll get out it. All of the way up to the PhD level.)

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#244

Post by pc86 »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #126
Malic wrote: post #25

I'm surprised that Peopleware (DeMarco and Lister) isn't in there somewhere.

How, in the process of answering a specific programming question on Stackoverflow, would a link to a book on project management be appropriate? Also, what's up with the phrase "I'm surprised" that always comes up in threads like this: If you believe a book should be higher up, tell us why! Or do you question the author's methodology? If you misjudge the current significance or influence of a thing, ... so what?

I'm not sure what you could have possibly hoped to gain by writing this condescending "I'm so smart" response.

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#245

Post by pc86 »

campervan wrote: post #242
pc86 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it won't really (and by really I mean rigorously) explain (and by explain I mean prove) much of anything Sentence would be a lot shorter if you had just said "it won't rigorously prove much of anything."

Yeah, who needs nuance anyway? Just communicate using pure logic next time.

Generally I'd agree with you, but the parenthetical statements only make the sentence harder to read and do not change or add to the meaning at all, at least to me.

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#246

Post by v3gas »

pc86 wrote: post #245
campervan wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, who needs nuance anyway? Just communicate using pure logic next time.

Generally I'd agree with you, but the parenthetical statements only make the sentence harder to read and do not change or add to the meaning at all, at least to me.

It's fun, though!

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#247

Post by RawData »

blacksmythe wrote: post #181
osullivj wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But lots of C++ books. C++ and Python are my primary languages, and I own far more C++ books than Python. For C++ I've got all Scott Meyers stuff, Alexandrescu, Stroustrups C++ language. For Python I've got Beazley, and that's it. My guess is that Python, and probably Ruby too, are so much easier to learn than C++, so fewer books are read and sold.

The Python on-line documentation is really outstanding. I don't use any Python books at all.

yes again; good for you...but totally irrelevant.

There are python books, they are sold, keeping them off this list is lame.

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#248

Post by dvt »

pc86 wrote: post #245
campervan wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, who needs nuance anyway? Just communicate using pure logic next time.

Generally I'd agree with you, but the parenthetical statements only make the sentence harder to read and do not change or add to the meaning at all, at least to me.

It's one of my many bad habits learned as a philosophy undergraduate :)

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#249

Post by krick »

Yizahi wrote: post #229
krick wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought the most popular book no-one ever read was Knuth's "The Art of Programming".

And SICP.

SICP? SICP is actually readable and quite interesting. I did it. And it is not nearly as widely known as TAP in the outer world.

Re: The most mentioned books on Stack Overflow

#250

Post by CN7R »

krick wrote: post #249
Yizahi wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And SICP.

SICP? SICP is actually readable and quite interesting. I did it. And it is not nearly as widely known as TAP in the outer world.

I actually have a modified version of SICP being used as a textbook for one of my classes -- it's called Composing Programs.
Post reply on HN