wnoise comments on Open Thread: March 2010 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: AdeleneDawner 01 March 2010 09:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (658)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: SoullessAutomaton 02 March 2010 02:49:07AM 3 points [-]

Well, I admit that my thoughts are colored somewhat by an impression--acquired by having made a living from programming for some years--that there are plenty of people who have been doing it for quite a while without, in fact, having any understanding whatsoever. Observe also the abysmal state of affairs regarding the expected quality of software; I marvel that anyone has the audacity to use the phrase "software engineer" with a straight face! But I'll leave it at that, lest I start quoting Dijkstra.

Back on topic, I do agree that being able to start doing things quickly--both in terms of producing interesting results and getting rapid feedback--is important, but not the most important thing.

Comment author: XiXiDu 02 March 2010 12:25:38PM 2 points [-]

I want to achieve an understanding of the basics without necessarily being able to be a productive programmer. I want to get a grasp of the underlying nature of computer science, not being able to mechanical write and parse code to solve certain problems. The big picture and underlying nature is what I'm looking for.

I agree that many people do not understand, they really only learnt how to mechanical use something. How much does the average person know about how one of our simplest tools work, the knife? What does it mean to cut something? What does the act of cutting accomplish? How does it work?

We all know how to use this particular tool. We think it is obvious, thus we do not contemplate it any further. But most of us have no idea what actually physically happens. We are ignorant of the underlying mechanisms for that we think we understand. We are quick to conclude that there is nothing more to learn here. But there is deep knowledge to be found in what might superficially appear to be simple and obvious.

Comment author: RobinZ 02 March 2010 01:16:18PM *  3 points [-]

I, unfortunately, am merely an engineer with a little BASIC and MATLAB experience, but if it is computer science you are interested in, rather than coding, count this as another vote for SICP. Kernighan and Ritchie is also spoken of in reverent tones (edit: but as a manual for C, not an introductory book - see below), as is The Art of Computer Programming by Knuth.

I have physically seen these books, but not studied any of them - I'm just communicating a secondhand impression of the conventional wisdom. Weight accordingly.

Comment author: wnoise 02 March 2010 04:58:09PM 3 points [-]

Kernighan and Ritchie is a fine book, with crystal clear writing. But I tend to think of it as "C for experienced programmers", not "learn programming through C".

TAoCP is "learn computer science", which I think is rather different than learning programming. Again, a fine book, but not quite on target initially.

I've only flipped through SICP, so I have little to say.

Comment author: RobinZ 02 March 2010 05:19:28PM 0 points [-]

TAoCP and SICP are probably both computer science - I recommended those particularly as being computer science books, rather than elementary programming. I'll take your word on Kernighan and Ritchie, though - put that one off until you want to learn C, then.