4 ms·

> I've read all of these books myself, so I have no difficulty believing that many moderately competent programmers have read them as well. If you're interested

> I've read all of these books myself, so I have no difficulty believing that many moderately competent programmers have read them as well. If you're interested enough in programming that you're reading this blog, you've probably read most, if not all of the books in this list That is some gross arrogance on full display right there. If you're as good as me, surely you've read all these books. Any other books... flawed in ways you should be ashamed of.

justinlardinois 10y ago
Agreed. At risk of sounding like an idiot, the K&R C book and Mythical Man-Month are the only books on that list I've even heard of, and I haven't read either of them. Also, he gives "more of a language reference" as a reason for not reading Stroutstrup's C++ book. Doesn't the same apply to K&R?
- cwingrav 10y ago
  This is a good reading list. You should probably pick up a copy of these, flip through them and see why they are so recommended. Having not done something doesn't make you an idiot. Having an opportunity and a recommendation, and rejecting it for no good reason... that could be different.
- userbinator 10y ago
  C is a far smaller language than C++, and perhaps the writing style of K&R is somewhat more accessible. Stroustrup's book does have some parts that give an "I invented this language, see how awesome it is" impression, whereas K&R is quite unopinionated and neutral.
- OrthoMetaPara 10y ago
  No. Save for the appendices, K & R can be completed and understood in a weekend. It's kind of fun to read and to work through the problems, even if you rarely use C. The Sepples book, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia. I don't know why anyone would want to read that unless he had to. In 2016, however, I think that a lot of people would have read CLRS, even if they haven't read ALL of it. It's used as the reference text by a lot of university courses on algorithms.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  K&R actually describes C. You can pick up the original K&R from way back, and it's not so different to the latest ANSI C. The differences aren't quite trivial, but they're not so big they're going to distract anybody for long. It's probably impossible for any book to fully describe C++ because it'a a perpetually moving target on a three year update cycle. There are always new idioms and techniques to learn, but they keep being changed/added without any obvious coherent design strategy or logical goal. Books can barely keep up. Stroustrop's own C++ introduction is for C++11, which is already five years and nearly two releases old.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    For a long time this wasn't really the case. In between C+98 and C++11, Stroustrop's book contained essentially everything you would want to know about C++, including details on how to implement the STL yourself! The end of the book even included a grammar for C++ (with a slight comment about how the grammar wasn't exact because of C++ context sensitivity)
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Definitely read Code Complete and pass it onto junior developers. Many teach you how to write code but it breaks down writing maintainable code.
Forge36 10y ago
I don't believe the author intended to insult you. It's very likely you do know much of what those books have to offer. It's also possible you think about the topics in those books in a different manner. One of the benefits of a group of programmers reading the same book is the shared language.
- shagie 10y ago
  That incidentally is the idea behind Patterns... not this "pick a pattern to solve the problem" - or worse yet, "here's a Pattern, find the problem to solve." The shard language. The GoF wanted that shared language, but people missed the ideal behind it and thought it was a cookbook instead. The GoF draws from A Pattern Language ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195019199/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195019199/ ) and I believe does a better job at communicating what Patterns should be - a common language and broad brush strokes of solving common problems (though almost always require some tweaking to make it fit just right).
- solipsism 10y ago
  He said "arrogant" not "insulting".
cruise02 10y ago
It isn't arrogant to assume other people are at least as well read as you are. It would be arrogant to assume that they aren't.

justinlardinois 10y ago

Agreed. At risk of sounding like an idiot, the K&R C book and Mythical Man-Month are the only books on that list I've even heard of, and I haven't read either of them. Also, he gives "more of a language reference" as a reason for not reading Stroutstrup's C++ book. Doesn't the same apply to K&R?

cwingrav 10y ago
This is a good reading list. You should probably pick up a copy of these, flip through them and see why they are so recommended. Having not done something doesn't make you an idiot. Having an opportunity and a recommendation, and rejecting it for no good reason... that could be different.
userbinator 10y ago
C is a far smaller language than C++, and perhaps the writing style of K&R is somewhat more accessible. Stroustrup's book does have some parts that give an "I invented this language, see how awesome it is" impression, whereas K&R is quite unopinionated and neutral.
OrthoMetaPara 10y ago
No. Save for the appendices, K & R can be completed and understood in a weekend. It's kind of fun to read and to work through the problems, even if you rarely use C. The Sepples book, on the other hand, is an encyclopedia. I don't know why anyone would want to read that unless he had to. In 2016, however, I think that a lot of people would have read CLRS, even if they haven't read ALL of it. It's used as the reference text by a lot of university courses on algorithms.
TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
K&R actually describes C. You can pick up the original K&R from way back, and it's not so different to the latest ANSI C. The differences aren't quite trivial, but they're not so big they're going to distract anybody for long. It's probably impossible for any book to fully describe C++ because it'a a perpetually moving target on a three year update cycle. There are always new idioms and techniques to learn, but they keep being changed/added without any obvious coherent design strategy or logical goal. Books can barely keep up. Stroustrop's own C++ introduction is for C++11, which is already five years and nearly two releases old.
- rtpg 10y ago
  For a long time this wasn't really the case. In between C+98 and C++11, Stroustrop's book contained essentially everything you would want to know about C++, including details on how to implement the STL yourself! The end of the book even included a grammar for C++ (with a slight comment about how the grammar wasn't exact because of C++ context sensitivity)
nickpsecurity 10y ago
Definitely read Code Complete and pass it onto junior developers. Many teach you how to write code but it breaks down writing maintainable code.

Forge36 10y ago

I don't believe the author intended to insult you. It's very likely you do know much of what those books have to offer. It's also possible you think about the topics in those books in a different manner. One of the benefits of a group of programmers reading the same book is the shared language.

shagie 10y ago
That incidentally is the idea behind Patterns... not this "pick a pattern to solve the problem" - or worse yet, "here's a Pattern, find the problem to solve." The shard language. The GoF wanted that shared language, but people missed the ideal behind it and thought it was a cookbook instead. The GoF draws from A Pattern Language ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195019199/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/0195019199/ ) and I believe does a better job at communicating what Patterns should be - a common language and broad brush strokes of solving common problems (though almost always require some tweaking to make it fit just right).
solipsism 10y ago
He said "arrogant" not "insulting".

cruise02 10y ago

It isn't arrogant to assume other people are at least as well read as you are. It would be arrogant to assume that they aren't.