I'm not particularly sensitive to it, it has to be fairly pronounced before I'd even notice. This is. It's one thing to say, I'd do it different. I'd have this

I'm not particularly sensitive to it, it has to be fairly pronounced before I'd even notice. This is. It's one thing to say, I'd do it different. I'd have this book, or that book, or my list would have more this focus or that focus. It's a whole different beast to claim this list is "poor." And it is stupid to do so without countering with a list of exactly 5 books. Yes stupid. I have read all 5 books. All 5 are excellent books. All 5 are very highly regarded in the field of programming and computer science. The descriptions that are attached to the list in TFA are accurate and useful to anyone reading the list. If there's a book on that list you haven't read, I'd say read it. This list simply isn't in the same postcode as "poor" and the descriptions of it as poor can't back it up in a meaningful way. Maybe there's another reason why the general mood of this thread is hypercritical? Smells a bit though, don't it? Do you really think if Guttag submitted that list the tone here would be the same or would the whole "this book is better" comments be rather more respectful of the original list and author? I've stated my opinion and why. You may of course, disagree. Here's mine, Petzold "Code", Kernighan and Pike's "Practise of Programming", "The Pragmatic Programmer", Abelson and Sussman "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (with video lectures on youtube), Richard Stevens "Unix Network Programming" or maybe "Advanced Programming in the Unix Environment" - Which betray my OS accent. I'm not sure it's better than Ana Bell's. You can decide for yourself on that point.