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

How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

reasonablypolymorphic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 62 posts

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#51

Post by kragen »

grumple wrote: post #27
kragen wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code 's good but it doesn't cover Kleisli categories and Kleisli composition, Peano arithmetic, parametric polymorphism, sum types, pattern matching, or any of numerous other things covered in Maguire's How These Things Work . So it's not accurate to say Code is "far more comprehensive"; Code mentions FORTRAN, ALGOL, COBOL, PL/1, and BASIC, but the example programs it contains are written in assembly, ALGOL, and BASI…

You are correct, Code does not contain all of the knowledge relevant to computer science. In fact, no book does, as far as I'm aware. But it is far more comprehensive than the OP because it covers a greater breadth of subjects and in greater depth with more accessibility. You're comparing 50 pages of blog posts to 300 pages of book.

I think there's more computer science in those 50 pages, really. It's an easy win.

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#52

Post by kragen »

eat wrote: post #39
danielvaughn wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's very depressing that I've been a developer for 8 years and I've never heard any of those terms you mentioned. I'm self taught but I've always felt like I should go back and really learn the fundamentals.

I'm not saying you shouldn't always strive to learn new things (for your own personal growth and curiosity), but I think it's important to point out that the link between being a developer and knowing about these things-- esoteric topics of applied Mathematics-- is pretty weak. Imagine a carpenter spending their time getting a chemistry degree in order to better understand how wood glue works.

Those aren't esoteric topics of applied mathematics if you're programming in Haskell or using formal methods. Moreover, some of them will improve your ability to write working Python. (The others I don't understand. Maybe they will too once I understand them.)

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#53

Post by kragen »

elbear wrote: post #47
murgindrag wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Understanding what goes on underneath the hood is really what differentiates decent coders from great engineers. Compare the data structures of Subversion to those of git. Or look at some of the work John Carmack did in video games. That requires depth. If your goal is to be a carpenter who puts together housing frames, you absolutely don't need depth. You're also interchangeable and get paid union…

Not everyone needs to be great. What I actually want to say is that OP shouldn't feel guilty about not knowing those things. It's okay to want to master these things, if it's what you want. But it's pointless to feel bad about not knowing them.

Of course there is no necessity for excellence. The only necessary thing about human life is death; everything else is optional. Before your death, you can cultivate excellence in yourself, or not — many people instead cultivate hatred, addiction, or greed. There are many ways to cultivate excellence; learning is only one of them, and there are many things to learn. Mathematics, and in particular logic (which is what we are talking about here) are the foundation of all objective knowledge, but objective knowledge is not the only kind that has value.

The true philosopher, motivated by love for the truth rather than pride, is so noble in spirit that when she sees evidence that she may be in error, she immediately investigates it rather than turning away; and if she discovers that the evidence is valid, she immediately changes her position. I see such nobility so routinely among mathematicians and logicians that it is noteworthy in the rare cases where it is absent. I see it rarely outside of that field; in some fields, like psychology and theology, I do not see it at all. So I conclude — tentatively — that excellence in mathematics and logic promotes humility and nobility of spirit, which is the highest and most praiseworthy kind of excellence.

So, while I do not think the OP should feel guilty about not knowing those things, I also do not agree with the implication that there is nothing praiseworthy about knowing them.

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#54

Post by porknubbins »

A few years ago, I asked my engineer friend about how much of civilization he could rebuild singlehandedly, should he survive some hypothetical apocalyptic event. “All of it,” he replied. “Not all at once, but I know enough to be able to puzzle together the pieces I don’t know right this second.”

While I admire the Connecticut-Yankee optimism of the engineer, as a non engineer I am seriously skeptical about how a single engineer could know enough about the chemistry, materials, physics, CS etc. I can explain what a battery, or transistor is supposed to do but wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to actually make one. In this scenario are we leaving the bunker to break into Bell Labs (or some research university library at least)?

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#55

Post by augbog »

porknubbins wrote: post #54

A few years ago, I asked my engineer friend about how much of civilization he could rebuild singlehandedly, should he survive some hypothetical apocalyptic event. “All of it,” he replied. “Not all at once, but I know enough to be able to puzzle together the pieces I don’t know right this second.” While I admire the Connecticut-Yankee optimism of the engineer, as a non engineer I am seriously skeptical about how a sin…

Somewhat of a tangent but related, there is an anime called Dr.Stone where a brilliant genius scientist kid gets ported 3700 years in the future and people have reverted back to the stone ages. He teaches them how to build everything from scratch and makes some crazy stuff i.e. antibiotics, etc. Highly recommend

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#56

Post by latexr »

porknubbins wrote: post #54

A few years ago, I asked my engineer friend about how much of civilization he could rebuild singlehandedly, should he survive some hypothetical apocalyptic event. “All of it,” he replied. “Not all at once, but I know enough to be able to puzzle together the pieces I don’t know right this second.” While I admire the Connecticut-Yankee optimism of the engineer, as a non engineer I am seriously skeptical about how a sin…

I share your skepticism. Seems to me the engineer is falling prey to the Dunning-Kruger effect[1]. Rather than knowing enough to be able to puzzle together all the pieces they don’t know, I’d wager they don’t know enough to be able to discern what they won’t be able to figure out.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#57

Post by ci5er »

Toenex wrote: post #2

Nice. I did an EE degree many years ago even though I wanted to work in software. The single best course I did was to design, simulate and have fabricated a 4 bit microprocessor. It completely solidified my understanding of how computations took place. Hopefully, texts like this will do the same for others.

I did a EE CS double major a LONG time ago. Senior year included a real summonavitch VLSI course, where in Q1 we had to design a 16- or 32- bit CPU. Over Thanksgiving break, TI manufactured them for us. Q2, we built a computer. Q3, we made it bootable (OS) and C compiler. I was interviewing for jobs in Japan (school was in Terre Haute, so travel overhead!) and I thought I was going to die. But it was the best thing that ever happened to me...

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#58

Post by elbear »

kragen wrote: post #53
elbear wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone needs to be great. What I actually want to say is that OP shouldn't feel guilty about not knowing those things. It's okay to want to master these things, if it's what you want. But it's pointless to feel bad about not knowing them.

Of course there is no necessity for excellence. The only necessary thing about human life is death; everything else is optional. Before your death, you can cultivate excellence in yourself, or not — many people instead cultivate hatred, addiction, or greed. There are many ways to cultivate excellence; learning is only one of them, and there are many things to learn. Mathematics, and in particular logic (which is what…

Well, I agree with you. I think that pursuing our interests in mathematics, music, literature or whatever strikes our fancy is admirable. And I think it makes us happier, wiser and more humble as you say.

At the same time, I maintain that we shouldn't feel guilty if we aren't doing it that, for whatever reason. Sure, sometimes we actually want to pursuit some of these things, but don't. Maybe it's because we have a messy schedule, we can't organize ourselves to prioritize passions.

Feeling guilty does little to actually make you pursue your passions. You're better off learning about habits and how to pick ones that serve you.

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#59

Post by kragen »

elbear wrote: post #58
kragen wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course there is no necessity for excellence. The only necessary thing about human life is death; everything else is optional. Before your death, you can cultivate excellence in yourself, or not — many people instead cultivate hatred, addiction, or greed. There are many ways to cultivate excellence; learning is only one of them, and there are many things to learn. Mathematics, and in particular logic (which is what…

Well, I agree with you. I think that pursuing our interests in mathematics, music, literature or whatever strikes our fancy is admirable. And I think it makes us happier, wiser and more humble as you say. At the same time, I maintain that we shouldn't feel guilty if we aren't doing it that, for whatever reason. Sure, sometimes we actually want to pursuit some of these things, but don't. Maybe it's because we have a m…

Agreed, except that I don't think pursuing our interests in whatever strikes our fancy is admirable.

Re: How These Things Work – A book about CS from first principles (2016)

#60

Post by ClumsyPilot »

porknubbins wrote: post #54

A few years ago, I asked my engineer friend about how much of civilization he could rebuild singlehandedly, should he survive some hypothetical apocalyptic event. “All of it,” he replied. “Not all at once, but I know enough to be able to puzzle together the pieces I don’t know right this second.” While I admire the Connecticut-Yankee optimism of the engineer, as a non engineer I am seriously skeptical about how a sin…

The questions usually lack a starting point. It's one thing to be stuck I medieval time, but stone age is another thing entirely.
Post reply on HN