
The Importance of Reading as a Software Engineer - Sheepzez
http://isaacjordan.me/blog/2015/12/the-importance-of-reading-as-a-software-engineer/
======
alexandercrohde
I'm sorry, but I really don't know why this is front-page hacker news. Is this
somebody famous or something?

\- Starts out by linking to somebody's book

\- States its thesis "Engineers should read"

\- It then reasons out that famous people advocate books, and then speculates
this is related to their success [causal?]

\- Proposes which book one reads doesn't matter

\- Charges the reader to read the book over 2 weeks

\- Speculates that reading helps spot analogies to current life situations.

\- Repeats thesis statement.

~~~
Sheepzez
Hey, no I'm not famous in any way - just a lowly undergrad looking to get some
views and feedback on my blog posts (I only recently started).

Your points are definitely fair, and I agree that the post could be better
thought out and structured to give a more coherent argument. Thanks for the
feedback.

------
stdbrouw
Just a nitpick, but you can't go around and say "successful people tend to
read a lot of books, but anyway, that's probably just a correlation, not
causal" and then proceed to make the argument that people should read books
because it'll make them smarter. That's the exact opposite of the argument you
just made. If you believe that a correlation represents a cause-effect
relationship, just say so.

~~~
Sheepzez
I was really just trying to show the point without saying "reading books will
make you smarter/successful", but more to say that you may find it harder to
be successful if you don't read.

~~~
mziel
Logic tells us those two statements are equivalent.

p = "reading books"

q = "success"

p => q is equivalent to ~q => ~p

~~~
johann28
This is true but irrelevant.

It may well be that reading doesn't make you successful, but not-reading makes
you not-successful.

It's like playing the lottery doesn't make you win, but not-playing makes you
not-win.

------
superuser2
One hypothesis: reading is a concentration-building activity. One of the
greatest determinants of success as a software engineer is your ability to
attain and maintain concentration. If this is a habit for you, you're going to
be a better programmer.

Contrast with the more typical leisure activity (of which I am totally
guilty): the Skinner boxes of HN, Reddit, Facebook, and to some extent
Netflix.

~~~
5olidor
I like the observation about the importance of concentration.

In addition to reading, I've noticed that studying mathematics is an
opportunity to practice (or build) the ability to focus on frustratingly
difficult material that requires a high attention to detail.

~~~
superuser2
People talk a lot about programming being similar to math, programming ability
being similar to mathematics ability. I've always been a shitty symbol-pusher
and a reasonable programmer, so I thought this was a bunch of bullshit. Then I
actually took a post-calculus math course (Intro to Analysis and Linear
Algebra). The _material_ was irrelevant but the cognitive muscles exercised
were very similar.

------
jacalata
>Many view reading as a waste of valuable time

Who thinks that?

~~~
t0mk
I think reading book about a programming language, or an accessible technology
is indeed a waste of time (and a bit of money). Why not just follow a good
online tutorial and try things straight up?

With hands-on from the start, you won't comprehend all the stuff early on, no
doubt. But those holes in your understanding of the concept are really useful
because it makes you more motivated to fill them, and feel rewarded when you
finally get it.

Also, I noticed some sort of book-hoarding learning fallacy between people I
know - when somebody wants to learn a technology, he/she sees ordering an
Oreilly book on the topic as a valid part of the learning effort. As if the
idea would be "I'll get a book, read it, ???, become a guru". Usually the
person doesn't even get to read it (no time after when it's delivered; new
obsession; ...). And even if, reading one book won't make you even a
reasonable <whatever> programmer. You'd just make better use of the time
following a good tutorial, and then perhaps hacking in a FOSS project.

~~~
drtz
> ...he/she sees ordering an Oreilly book on the topic as a valid part of the
> learning effort.

It's easy enough to see the difference between ordering a book and reading it.

Regardless, in response to your overall point, some people can actually learn
a great deal by reading a book that interests them. In addition, books can be
read when working through an online tutorial is impractical -- standing on a
train on your way to work, lying in bed before going to sleep, sitting on the
beach or by the pool. Finally, books provide context missing from your run-of-
the-mill tutorial: history and motivation for the technology (why things were
built the way they were), references for further reading, etc...

------
msvan
Alternative theory: the more successful you are, the more well-read you need
to appear.

I've read some 25 books this year, not an awful lot but also probably above
the population average. I struggle to recommend any one as a life-changer.
Many were good, but I'd say the real life-changer is to read regularly rather
than scavenging any single book for secrets and advice.

~~~
branchless
Is reading also the preserve of those who are not over-worked? If you have a
good job and are not stressed about losing it (and not getting another) are
you more able to find the time to read, and also to immerse yourself?

I know when I'm stressed I have a hard time focussing on say reading an
interesting biography, even if achieving immersion would help me overall.

~~~
collyw
I am a pretty slow reader (when it comes to novels). I hardly ever read them
when I am working, as I usully have plenty of other things I feel the need to
read up on (usually new / interesting sounding tech). I used to read a lot
when I was travelling / working as a river guide a number of years back. I
wish I had the time to read more now.

------
ternaryoperator
I hate book lists when they're presented as recommendations of books we should
all read, while it's transparently clear that the author has not read them. To
the author: provide a list of books _you_ have read and tell us why you
recommend them, rather than linking to a list from 2008 (!) of books that you
haven't read (nor has the author of that list).

------
johann28
Ferrari guy approves
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZKp_jFxQJc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZKp_jFxQJc)

------
ghosttie
tl;dr

