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 anyone interested in these topics.
The book won a Pulitzer and to take a quote from the Scientific American about it: "Every few decades, an unknown author brings out a book of such depth, clarity, range, wit, beauty and originality that it is recognized at once as a major literary event."
Fun book. Hofstadter actually doesn't like computers, apparently: this is in the record, and I've heard him mention that fact multiple times. He just likes playing with ideas.
If you read GEB, you can see in different chapters that he is a big fan of computers, simulations, attempts at AI, and the such.
maybe mentioning GEB is a high risk / high reward situation?!
Perhaps this one had bad experience with people who talked too much about GEB.
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's probably the equivalent of someone saying "omg fractals" or "the incompleteness theorems, man, math is broken, I find that so beautiful" in response to "So you like math/CS?" After a while, that becomes a red flag that you learn to small-talk your way out of, albeit with some shame: while I agree with GP, to some extent, I do understand how this can be exclusionary, though. Almost by construction, someone who isn't in really deep is far more likely to have met the parts of a field that have been popularized than other things, and putting them down for this can be counterproductive if you're looking to attract more people or, well, just evangelize. I don't know of a good way out of this.
I do seem to have noticed that this isn't the case if you replace "fractals" by, say, "differential equations" or even "trisection". Maybe what one really needs to avoid in introductory literature is powerful ideas that are easy to lossily summarize for a lay audience in the form of really general, unexpected-sounding incorrect-when-unqualified statements that seem to say profound things about life, the universe, and everything. Leaving off the last condition shouldn't make an appreciable difference in hype/excitement-generating power: you could very well do, say, some topological/geometric staple like the hairy ball theorem, or some knot theory, and so on. That way, you retain the visual appeal that $REALLY_BIG_NUMBER-x zooms of Mandelbrot give you, while significantly decreasing the tendency for the target to go into (partial or full) "woah, dude, everything is connected and I am pure energy" mode in the way that Gödel often does.
As an aside, GEB can be a good (rigorous, even) introduction to a few very powerful ideas. For me, what I call "interpreter-y thinking" was a good example, as was a healthy respect for how complex emergent behavior can arise from simple rules. This is something that's unfortunately hampered by the "bag of really cool ideas" nature that the book seemed to have when I read it four or five years ago.
: I've actually heard the "everything is connected" bit from a good friend who loves watching videos like in TFV, so it isn't entirely a strawman. :)
It takes a simple man to like a popular idea. It takes a mediocre man to like popularly unpopular ideas (ie cult classics, big only within certain circles). It takes a good man to knowingly like unpopularly popular ideas (ie liking spielberg and bay, popular directors everyone [in the know] loves to trash).
A great man will tell you why.
And only the greatest of men actually like whatever the hell they're talking about.
Sentence would be a lot shorter if you had just said "it won't rigorously prove much of anything."
When your waste basket is nonorientable, life becomes much simpler. Everything is both inside and outside the trash.
As having taken undergrad/grad courses in logic and set theory, any interesting nuggets about recursion/completeness/incompleteness/etc that one could glean from GEB can much more coherently and succinctly be obtained from a proper book on logic/computability.
The counterargument would be that this book is meant as entertainment: from my experience with the first ~200 pages, it was a complete chore to read, as ideas were presented enigmatically and slowly, to the point of frustration. Granted, my attempt at reading it was almost a decade ago.
Do you have any suggestions where to start? Are there perhaps online 'starter kits' that would guide me through what courses/books/whatever to work through? I find that one of the most difficult parts of self-learning: there's often no clear syllabus available.
Why not, for example, see it from Hinton's philosophical point of view (besides that the papers are very boring and dry, of course)? He made a very good defense against Pylyshin and Fodor and a few critiques of Hofstadter _and_ the algorithms are shipping on Google Search and things like that.
I don't know if I'd have the patience to read it today.
This is a misunderstanding of the DP book. It would be similar to saying that the existence of TVTropes.com is responsible for terrible scripts of tv shows and movies. Or, the existence of the Oxford English Dictionary is responsible for bad novels and useless documentation.
The DP book is a catalog (to gain awareness) and not a checklist (that you must do). It's a collection of observations about software structures out in the wild. It's not about prescription.
Even without the phrase "design patterns", it's easy to surmise that programmers out there are independently and unknowingly re-inventing the same higher-level structures (similar to tv tropes) but without giving them formal names. The DP book gives them formal names and hence, an attempt at shared vocabulary.
One can go to the amazon.com page for Design Patterns and click "Look inside" for the "First Pages" and see that the authors wanted to present a catalog: https://www.amazon.com/Design-Patterns-Elements-Reusable-Obj...
> This is a misunderstanding of the DP book.
It is discussing an effect of the book, not the intent.
> It would be similar to saying that the existence of TVTropes.com is responsible for terrible scripts of tv shows and movies.
Which would be entirely accurate if script writers were widely using TVTropes pages as templates and creating bad scripts from it, regardless of what TVTropes is intended to be.
Do you truly believe that specific DP book caused that effect?
I don't. The DP book is extremely dry reading and most programmers have not actually read it. ([In terms of readership/ownership ratio] It's a book like Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time" ... everybody knows about it and some might have it on the coffee table but very few actually read it.)
I do think the _phrase_ of "design patterns" (not the book) has become a sort of gravitational force such that any discussion about "overcomplicated design" seems to fall toward that particular phrase. Or put differently, "bad designs" is now a synonym of "design patterns" so much so such that you can't even say "design pattern" and have it be interpreted as a neutral term. It's become a trigger word.
>Which would be entirely accurate if script writers were widely using TVTropes pages as templates and creating bad scripts
Yes, I agree that would be equivalent. However, I don't think the existence of tvtropes compels directors like Michael Bay to repeat the "walk away calmly from explosion in the background" scene. The motivation to repeat that "cinematic pattern" comes from somewhere else. Likewise, the majority of bad/overcomplicated abstractions in source code come from somewhere else besides that particular DP book.
This doesn't match my experience but I think that's because you're conflating two related ideas: while few people may have deeply read DP, that's not a requirement for it to have had a strong influence on them, any more than it is necessary for someone to have deeply read and understood their holy book to have strong religious beliefs.
I make that comparison because the worst projects I've seen were heavily based on DP but in a bad way because it was used more as a club than a means for self-improvement. Architects threw it around to bolster their status, a strong push towards ritual cargo culting rather than making sure the problem was well understood enough to know that the code being written matched the actual business case, and any criticism was met with a flak shield of “This is the best practice way according to DP”.
That's not necessarily DPs fault — although there is a discussion to be had about valuing comprehensibility if you want to make meaningful improvements — but it was definitely an effect shaping software development for the worse for over a decade.
The problem is most people have a superficial knowledge of the patterns in the book (a list is easy to put together along with a short summary so most people have read one). They then go looking for how to apply the patterns to their domain so they can check the pattern box, without thinking about the large picture. They never consider that patterns exist to solve a specific problem and if you don't have that problem you shouldn't use the pattern.
The classic example is the singleton: it solves a tricky problem that large systems sometimes have. However few people realize that a singleton is a fancy name for a global variable and have all the downsides of a global variable.
There are several patterns that are a specific way of creating a layer of abstraction. Abstraction layers are often very useful, but as the saying goes: "all problems in programing can be solved by adding a layer of abstraction - except too many layers of abstraction". I've seen cases of layers of abstraction that didn't solve any problems.
As such the original point: DP, by giving patterns names has created more harm than good. This is not the fault of the book though: the names were needed and the patterns are very useful when applied correctly. However before the book people would re-invent the patterns (badly) only when they needed the pattern.
Really? It's been twenty years (maybe a bit more?) since I read the book, but I think this was pretty explicit, was it not?
I believe that it, and specific choices made in the selection and presentation of patterns in it, contributed significantly.
> The DP book is extremely dry reading and most programmers have not actually read it.
Perhaps, but the influence of a book (especially one which directly inspires other books) often extends beyond its direct readership.
 example from WSJ that mentions the common meme about ABHOT: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-summers-most-unread-book-is...
Context: My formal physics education ended in high school.
It is fast paced and packs a lot of information into each episode, so I do end up rewinding sometimes. And being a passive video, I think retention won't be as high. However, the short videos are very approachable and bite sized. It's very well done and the host is quite entertaining. The past year, my interest in space and physics has increased a bunch. It feels like learning the deeper history and context in which all of humanity is embedded.
GoF/Design Patterns was published in 1994.
Java, the standard-bearer of overapplying Design Patterns, was first released in 1995, and it only grew into the AbstractAdapterFactoryImpl cliches after that.
Based on that timeline Im not really sure how you can argue that GoF had nothing to do with DP madness, at least as exemplified by Java.
Just because GoF was originally meant to be descriptive does not mean that it can't be interpreted as prescriptive, especially by your stock work-a-day software engineer or peter-principle'd software architect.
Despite whatever intentions the GoF may have had, by giving these patterns a name, they in a sense codified them, giving people something to point to when justifying otherwise poorly thought out design decisions.
The thing about GoF is that you don't really have to read it to apply it--and not actually reading it only increases the odds of mis-applying patterns if youve encountered them elsewhere.
Yes, definitely. People used to cite the GOF book left and right while over-engineering crappy CRUD apps.
In any event, it doesn't really matter what the original intent of the GoF book is because in practice, people treat design patterns as, well, what the word "pattern" would suggest: "something designed or used as a model for making things <a dressmaker's pattern>".
This is further indicated by the term "anti-pattern," which basically means, "something you should avoid." If you should avoid the "anti" then it stands to reason you should follow the "pattern."
For even more demonstrations of this fact, look at subsequent design patterns book, like one by the Head First. These explicitly treat patterns as improvements to be made over some previous attempt at a coding problem. Or hell, check out this description from https://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns -- "Design patterns can speed up the development process by providing tested, proven development paradigms." " Reusing design patterns helps to prevent subtle issues that can cause major problems and improves code readability for coders and architects familiar with the patterns."
Whether it was the original intent of the GoF or not, design patterns are mostly perceived to be _good things_ that should be adhered to.
Now, as many have suggested, the wisdom of reaching for design patterns has been increasingly viewed with skepticism, and rightly so. It'll be interesting to see over time how much weight they carry and where the equilibrium lies. My guess is that certain patterns will essentially fade from relevance (if your language has first class methods, do you really need Strategy, for example?) While some (adapter, facade) remain useful ways of handling various problems.
Mainstream developers who attend schools that produce Java developers believe that this is a recipe book. I have seen this book used at conference talks for nearly 20 years. Countless blog posts aimed at beginners reference this book as the way to solve problems.
The book itself is pretty explicit that they are not recipes, but that doesn't mean it isn't used that way.
Don't blame the book - blame the curriculum that's based on it.
Giving name like flyweight to a simple "compression" scheme... The whole thing felt like "duh" to me. Sure it give common ground to people; but none of it felt like something to be written down, even less worshiped like it was.
I also strongly feel about the critics saying that it targets poor OOP languages (cpp, java <5), rendering the whole thing moot in other paradigms.
That may be, but it's a very common misunderstanding of the book by junior developers who read the book as a list of recipes to use anywhere they might be applicable.
Is it the book's fault that it's understood this way? I don't know. Regardless, the book + this persistent understanding and use of it are, as grabcocque says, "responsible for more atrocious over-abstracted, unreadable, hard to maintain Java code than anything else before or since."
Certain other design patterns books in the software field (Patterns of Enterprise Application Architecture and Enterprise Integration Patterns, for examples that happen to be on the shelf next to me at the moment) don't share those features.
Edit: I agree with your opinion. Just wanted to show that this problem is much older and related to other languages too (probably with the similar OOP implementation).
This is true, but it's an effect, not a cause of the book. "Design Patterns" is older than Java. They wrote it based on patterns they saw mainly in Smalltalk and C++.
> prescribed their use generally
Like "A Pattern Language", "Design Patterns" reads more descriptively than prescriptively. It's, "Here's a thing we saw people do. Here's what problem they were solving with it. Here's the context of their problem. Here's the positive and negative consequences."
Perhaps. But consider the background. People write code that isn't very well designed all the time. Maybe you just see these patterns misused so often because you can identify and name them. This is entirely the point behind the book – so we can identify these common patterns and talk about them at a higher level.
You've probably seen bad code where you can't describe what's wrong with it succinctly a lot too. But you don't have the option there of saying "oh, they've used a factory there when they shouldn't have" because the bad code doesn't follow a pattern that you know / have named. So all of those cases just get filed away in the fuzzy "bad code" category instead of being an example of a pattern being misapplied.
By definition, almost, something being a pattern is going to be something you see misapplied simply because that's part of the purpose of design patterns – so you can comprehend these problems better.
As with all things - there are some good ideas there and some bad. And as I understand it, the book simply presented patterns - programmers were already using at that time. So the book's existence in itself wouldn't cause bad code IMO.
Now if someone were to write a "modern design patterns" book, people will probably write about:
1. Actor pattern and concurrency using message passing.
2. Immutability and - designing types with no shared mutable state.
3. Dependency injection
4. Pattern matching
6. mocks and stubs and fake objects?
And same as before - some of these ideas when applied to certain cases could be bad.
Based on my recollection of the original Design Patterns book, all of the patterns you list are included in the original book. Caveat: I haven't opened the book in over 5 years, but I'd be surprised to learn that any of the 6 patterns you list are not in the original DP.
And afaict - none of the patterns I listed are mentioned verbatim.
I have the misfortune to remember what some object-oriented codebases looked like before "Design Patterns".
While people—generally those who haven't read the book or completely glossed over the section on the consequences of each pattern—have certainly over-used design patterns, I'll still take that over under-use of them.
An over-engineered too-many-design-patterns codebase is annoying and tedious. A hundred thousand lines of code filled with half-way-reinvented design patterns with its own made up terminology, hard coupling everywhere, piles of global state, and no real architecture to speak of at all is a nightmare.
But I guess the Problem is how OOP is teached.
Before I learned about design patterns I only saw car or animal examples. Design patterns were the first real world OOP stuff I saw at university.
I learned OOP with Turbo Pascal 5.5, for MS-DOS, around 1990. Started using Turbo Vision with Turbo Pascal 6.0.
Eventually also started coding with Object Windows Library in Turbo Pascal and Turbo C++.
Borland manuals were my introduction to OOP, followed by books like "Designing Object-Oriented C++ Applications using the Booch Method.".
Only later I got to learn about the multiple ways of doing OOP (CLOS, Beta, SELF, ...).
I mean, I did OOP in some languages, because, well, they had object like constructs. For example VBA had all these Excel tables modeled as objects you could access and modify via code.
Then there was C++ and Java with their factories and factory factories and whatnot.
And lastly the examples of cars that have wheels and animals that inherited stuff etc. pp.
So I had different concepts in my mind, all being objects.
On the one hand the examples of university.
On the other hand the tangible Excel table of VBA that I understood. "At table is an object with some methods and properties"
And then the "real programmer stuff" like a controller, a presenter, a singleton, a emitter... Things that were really abstract to me, because they didn't map directly to tangible things I saw in the software as a user.
Design patterns somehow made this more easy to grasp.
But I first started to understand the whole thing after building my own API in PHP (started after it got classes haha) that had module- (controllers), protocol- (views) and data-objects (models).
Everybody independently created singletons and factories and builders, we just all called them different things.
But, it scraps user comments that contain Amazon book link from HN and orders them by theirs point. If you wonder how much money Hacker News Book has been made, I would suggest to read this post . The different part with this is that Hacker News Book shows not only the most mentioned books all the time but also per week. Hacker News Book has more diversity of book topics since HN is not limited for programming discussions.
Anyway, I just want to say congratz to the OP for launching this. I think you miss "Show HN" on your post title.
I just quickly hacked together this query which pulls out all amazon URLs in post answers:
SELECT REGEXP_EXTRACT(body, r'[^a-z](http[a-z\:\-\_0-9\/\.]+amazon[a-z\:\-\_0-9\/\.]*)[^a-z]') AS link, COUNT(1)
GROUP BY 1 ORDER BY 2 DESC LIMIT 20
Would be great if the OP would tell us how many sales he made through this post (once he got the stats from the Amazon affiliate dashboard).
It's great what the OP did and I am really interested in his sales (and he already gave some insights, he's a great guy)
"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.
To each their own; shaming the OP on HN for adding affiliate links on their own website, on the product of their own effort, is what I'm trying to point out.
> This list is not much different than making a list of the top selling programming books on amazon.
Something which Amazon does, because likewise 'others may find [it] useful'.
You're only free to do this if you know that it's an issue. Unless you know about the affiliate program, you may be supporting this person against your own will. Even if you do know about the affiliate program, you may not know that after you click an affiliate link, the owner of the code gets a chunk of ANY Amazon purchase you make in the next 24 hours, whether or not it is related to the original link.
It seems pretty clear that amazon thinks affiliates provide a useful service. And if you go to amazon because someone shared something that interested you enough to buy it, they've provided you with a service. What exactly is the problem?
So I'm still not getting it. I see no conflict.
Do you think it will get decent traffic through SEO in future?
It got a fair bit of traction.
Out of my memory, Amazon affiliate links only earned me something like $30, total (I had other sources of revenue via targeted ads, which earned a bit more, but not much).
Edit: Here's why I like it: https://henrikwarne.com/2017/01/15/book-review-the-effective...
The anecdote in the beginning of the book, where he poses a simple question - how many test cases can you write for this simple program? about the geometry of a triangle - is mind-blowing, and sticks in my mind many years after reading it.
He says most people he gave it to, even experienced devs, did somewhat poorly or just average on it. I gave it as a test to a team (of juniors) on a project I was leading, once, and it made them see some light. We subsequently went on to deliver a pretty well-tested project.
[ Glenford Myers (born December 12, 1946) is an American computer scientist, entrepreneur, and author. He founded two successful high-tech companies (RadiSys and IP Fabrics), authored eight textbooks in the computer sciences, and made important contributions in microprocessor architecture. He holds a number of patents, including the original patent on "register scoreboarding" in microprocessor chips. He has a BS in electrical engineering from Clarkson University, an MS in computer science from Syracuse University, and a PhD in computer science from the Polytechnic Institute of New York University. ]
[ During this period, Myers also authored his first four books, including The Art of Software Testing, a book that became a classic and a best-seller in the computer science field, staying in print for 26 years before it was replaced by a second edition in 2004. Myers also served as a lecturer in computer science at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University, where he taught graduate-level courses in computer science. Years later, he was the 1988 recipient of the J.-D. Warnier Prize for his contributions to the field of software engineering. ]
Also could be interesting to see this study, but also weighted based on the number of votes the posts referring to them got.
A little old in the tooth i'd imagine.
I suppose the programming environment does make it a bit less accessible over time.
Like here on HN, Art of Computer Programming gets mentioned a lot. But I've not met anyone who has actually read it. And I own a copy. It's so hard of a read that I am just going to assume anyone who says they did is either lying or Donald Knuth.
I'm suspect of books as a means of information conveyance. They make great mediums for narratives, but narrative is too slow for technical writing. Similarly, I dislike videos, podcasts, and conference talks. Technical writing should be a wiki-like document where terms expand in-place. Start super high-level. Always written in clipped, imperative style. Single line per fact. Like mathematical proofs, but maybe in reverse.
To understand the first few hundred pages on mathematical preliminaries, the books "The Art and Craft of Problem Solving" by Zeitz and "Concepts of Modern Mathematics" by Stewart, were essential, both of which were recommended here in other book list posts. I also had already read the CS:APP book which covers x86-64 assembly so the MIX introduction was fairly straight forward. http://csapp.cs.cmu.edu/
A book for me that was hard to read, is this book: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/pfpl.html Practical Foundations for Programming Languages each page I have to translate with the notation guide, and is a research exercise searching Wikipedia for additional material.
There's something to be said for reading "a great book" from cover to cover. It is really an investment of time, effort and discipline over many days.
I think people (and I include myself) buy such books often with an aspirational intent, to spend that "perfect" weekend or weekends deeply ensconced in the subject matter and coming out of the reading as a different, better and more skilled person. It never happens that way, of course. We're just trying to re-live some past time as students where the world was an oyster of knowledge. For the most part memories of those days are grossly inaccurate, merely softened into nostalgia by the passage of time.
In reality, many of us behave like monkeys continually zapped by shock-collars just trying to keep up with shit that never works right and always living in a profound deficit of knowledge, while drowning in information.
Still, its good to have books, and worthwhile to take insane measures to get alone-time to read them. The short practical ones are best. Comprehensive reference books are good too because you can read just what you need while ducking from life's flying shit.
I started volume four but couldn't get my head around the first page, and am very dubious that plowing through it would have any real value.
It's a great intro to concurrent programming with lessons that apply to virtually any high-level programming language. The chapter on the Java memory model is the best practical description of how languages map to multi-processor memory models I have ever read. (Chapter 16 in my edition.)
After reading this book it's easy to understand why concurrency features in other languages are necessary and what they are doing behind the scenes. Golang channels come lightly to mind.
If you're dealing with any kind of concurrency -- especially in Java -- then it's pretty much a must-read.
Its explanation of the Java Memory Model is what got me interested in looking at JVM implementations and related shenanigans.
There is CS on SO, but SO is really designed to, and flooded with, stuff like "how to verify replication on mysql 5.6?" or "How do I install PIP for python on freebsd" and not so much "Lets have us a nice debate about P=NP" or "can someone clearly explain the entire proof of why 3SAT is NP-Complete at like a TED talk level?"
- Coding the Matrix, Klein
This has a strong emphasis on LA's utility in CS, and includes concepts outside traditional LA that enrich the narrative.
- Intro to Linear Algebra, Strang
Strang approaches LA from a practical less-theoretical angle, which makes it very sensible if you're an engineer but may not be as suitable if you're a mathematician.
- Linear Algebra, A Modern Intro, Poole
This is a solid text that has worked out most of its bugs over the editions.
- Linear Algebra and its Applications, Lay
Like Poole, this is also a solid and long running text.
The books by Klein and Strang also benefit from free videos of those courses that are available from Coursera/BrownU and MIT OCW. Klein's is also available on the Kindle.
Each short lecture had a 'Why didn't they tell me that in college!' kind of insight.
Transformations, determinants, dot products, cross products everything made sense
in a visual way.
Here are the top 10:
#1 Design Patterns - Ralph Johnson, Erich Gamma, John Vlissides, Richard Helm
#2 Clean Code - Robert C. Martin
#3 The C Programming Language - Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie
#4 CLR Via C# - Jeffrey Richter
#5 Modern C++ Design - Andrei Alexandrescu
#6 Large-scale C++ Software Design - John Lakos
#7 Inside the Microsoft Build Engine - Sayed Ibrahim Hashimi, William Bartholomew
#8 Programming Microsoft ASP.NET 2.0 core reference - Dino Esposito
#9 Compilers - Alfred V. Aho
#10 Accelerated C++ - Andrew Koenig, Barbara E. Moo
Now, the top 20:
#11 Hacker's Delight - Henry S. Warren
#12 Nos camarades Français - Elida Maria Szarota (actually The C++ Programming Language by Stroustrup)
#13 Compilers - Alfred V. Aho, Ravi Sethi
#14 Inside the C++ Object Model
#15 Code - Charles Petzold
#16 Hacking, 2nd Edition - Jon Erickson
#17 C Plus Plus Primer - Stanley B. Lippman, Josée Lajoie, Barbara E. Moo
#18 C Interfaces and Implementations - David R. Hanson
#19 Language Implementation Patterns - Terence Parr
#20 LISP in Small Pieces - Christian Queinnec
Here are the top 30:
#21 Linkers and Loaders - John R. Levine
#22 Assembly Language Step-by-Step - Jeff Duntemann
#23 The Garbage Collection Handbook - Richard Jones, Antony Hosking, Eliot Moss
#24 Game Scripting Mastery - Alex Varanese
#25 Domain-specific Languages - Martin Fowler, Rebecca Parsons
#26 Computer Architecture - John L. Hennessy, David A. Patterson
#27 The Elements of Computing Systems - Noam Nisan, Shimon Schocken
#28 The ACE Programmer's Guide - Stephen D. Huston, James C. E. Johnson, Umar Syyid
#29 Modern Compiler Implementation in C - Andrew W. Appel, Maia Ginsburg
#30 Algorithms + Data Structures - Niklaus Wirth
Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools
Engineering a Compiler, Second Edition
Writing Compilers and Interpreters: A Software Engineering Approach
Compiler Construction: Principles and Practice
Compilers: Principles and Practice
Language Implementation Patterns
Crafting a Compiler with C
Compiler Design in C
Principles of Compiler Design
Modern Compiler Implementation in Java
This is absolutely relevant to compiler construction.
> This is a comprehensive account of the semantics and the implementation of the whole Lisp family of languages, namely Lisp, Scheme and related dialects. It describes 11 interpreters and 2 compilers, including very recent techniques of interpretation and compilation.
I've been sitting in on Monica Lam's Stanford CS 243 lectures and she's covering scheduling and software pipelining right now. Lam definitely knows her material; she wrote the papers before she re-wrote the book. She's an excellent lecturer to all of 15 students and one who asks perhaps more than his fair share of questions.
The algorithm here is to take the links to amazon and make a count of it. Plain and simple.
For a more popular book like SICP, it just going to mentioned by it's acronym as SICP. The expanded version of the title "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" is rarely mentioned and so is the author name. An amazon link would be almost non-existent. This is because, the book is so popular the reader needs no introduction. Unfortunately, as per the logic used for this site, it will not be accounted. The same goes for books whose multiple versions show up in the result.
This is not to put down the dev-books.com site in anyway. To do a disambiguating parser that can parse any format of title and/or author name would increase the complexity and implementation time by orders of magnitude. It would also be completely against the mantra of "Release early and often".
Furthermore I wonder if peddling one's own book on SO leads to more sales.
I don't have it at the moment, but seems useful to do things like check for topics or something so it'd have the ability to check for book topics and things like that too.
I say that, because it seems like people like to talk bad about C++ as if it's terrible language (rather than just another tool in the toolbox).
I don't have an opinion either way. Just making an observation.
The only book I have kept and refuse to part with is the Kernighan + Ritchie book (and I'm not a C programmer).
Should be mandatory reading IMHO.
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?
It's certainly incomplete, as there are some new good parts.
But most of the language is still there, and I'd rather imagine the same perspective that helped a lot of programmers coming from other languages adapt to it is still helpful.
An example of this is when you search for Hadoop. You'll find all 4 editions of Tom White's book show up in the top 10 listing.
I've seen that recommended many times but it's a terrible book, IMHO. (I don't remember the specifics why, but vaguely remember the author waffles around without any real points).
Like, the kitchen top example, which is best summarized with two pictures:
I find topology influencing brain patterns being a fascinating topic.
Also: http://i.imgur.com/ACe2b51.jpg technician clearly didn't read the book XD
Great! I now have an AbstractProblemFactory to generate problems on demand.
It's very readable and has _excellent_ exercises to do as you work through the book.
Is mastering regex simply a form of memorization? There doesn't seem to be any logical pattern to the various flags.
There are python books, they are sold, keeping them off this list is lame.
Eventually old stuff tails off. I learned C from K+R edition one in the 80s, and the ANSI edition two has now displaced it.
>"You must clearly state the following on your Site or any other location where Amazon may authorize your display or other use of Content: “We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.”"