
Liskov's Reading List for Computer Scientists - yuningalexliu
http://jpirker.com/hlf16-liskovs-reading-list-for-computer-scientists/
======
raister
That is a good list for Computer Science years 1950-1975, however, I would
rather see important things that is relevant 1975-2015.

~~~
tonyarkles
I think it's really important to remember that a lot of these papers _are_
relevant and important for modern systems.

"The Morning Paper" did a series in September on a bunch of older papers from
the 70s about system design.
[https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/09/page/3/](https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/09/page/3/)

As an example, [https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/09/05/on-the-criteria-to-be-
us...](https://blog.acolyer.org/2016/09/05/on-the-criteria-to-be-used-in-
decomposing-systems-into-modules/) is just as relevant now as it was then. It
shocks me over and over to find papers like that one; we as an industry seem
to miss and forget the lessons that our forebearers learned.

------
mathieubordere
Working link for: Wirth, N. (1971). Program development by stepwise refinement
-
[https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Articles/StepwiseRefi...](https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/Articles/StepwiseRefinement.pdf)

------
gumby
Computer Science is notorious for ignoring history. Back in the 80s I would go
down to the library and read the literature. When I ran across something
exciting I'd go back to my office and use it for some problem I was working
on.

My colleagues were always astonished at my "brilliance". It didn't matter that
I referenced the paper in the code and even brandished the hardcopy (thats
what we had in those days) -- it was inconceivable that I might have found
something in the literature and made more sense that they were working with a
"genius".

When I moved into Pharma 20 years later it was the opposite: we would find
interesting and relevant results in papers more than 20 years old.

~~~
sotojuan
As you probably know, there's a big "gap" between Computer Science and
programming. While on HN we mostly talk about in terms of job interviews, it's
more endemic than that. Most of my colleagues (and myself, many times) dismiss
anything related to academia or academic papers as too hard, theoretical, and
not useful.

This not only applies to simple things such as coding a paper's algorithms to
test it out, but can be manifested as a refusal to read old literature to
avoid making the same mistakes people did decades ago.

~~~
gumby
> "...to avoid making the same mistakes people did decades ago."

I don't understand this part -- do you mean the past has nothing to teach the
present?

------
brudgers
_The Morning Paper_ recently looked at the list:
[https://blog.acolyer.org/?s=liskov](https://blog.acolyer.org/?s=liskov)

