4 ms·

I love this presentation. It led me to read Expert C Programming [1] by Peter Van Der Linden. My knowledge of C had vastly improved after reading that book (and

I love this presentation. It led me to read Expert C Programming [1] by Peter Van Der Linden. My knowledge of C had vastly improved after reading that book (and subsequently C++). Even if you're not a C programmer I would recommend the book as the anecdotes alone are worth reading for the questions that it encourages you to ask. I've since come to believe that reading the specifications and having the attention necessary to delve into these kinds of details and ask the right questions is important for mastery. It seems to me that learning 1 - 2 languages to this level of detail is worthwhile. I've been thinking of cutting back the number of languages I, "know," down to just those for which I am familiar with the specifications and how they're compiled, assembled, etc. Everything else is superficial. Sometimes all you need is just a cursory knowledge to get something done and the ends justify those means. However if you really love your craft then mastery should be the goal, no? It seems to be the difference between, "getting something working," and, "pushing the boundaries of what is possible." [1] http://www.amazon.ca/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/dp/0131774298 http://www.amazon.ca/Expert-Programming-Peter-van-Linden/dp/...

sanderjd 13y ago
It's wonderfully frustrating that there is truly so much to learn that even the study of programming languages, which is an incredibly tiny field relative to the whole of human knowledge, it is still necessary to make depth vs. breadth trade-offs. I find your choice to focus more on depth appealing, but almost immediately feel a sense of loss for all the breadth such a focus would require giving up. I think a better balance may be to master things that are widely relevant at depth, while giving less focus to things that are very specific. Put another way: depth for "essence", breadth for "accident". Of the items on slide 181 of the presentation, only calling conventions, memory model, and probably optimization seem like "essence" to me, ie. every program you ever write in any language will benefit from deep knowledge of those topics. The rest of the items are somewhat arbitrary and very specific to the particular history of the C language itself.
- agentultra 13y ago
  It boils down to learning a handful of languages enough that you can make some meaningful contributions or a single language deep enough that you can have a meaningful discussion. Neither approach forgoes learning fundamental theory. I equate learning to master C like learning to master a particular instrument like the violin; it requires knowledge of the instrument's construction, the physics of how it produces sound, and a host of other details that must be mastered before one can really make it sing. I can study music theory for years and it won't help me play the violin well. It will make composition easier and assist me as I adapt myself to the instrument. However one still has to master the instrument and I see the two being complementary and distinct skills. The metaphor holds together when you start thinking about the breadth of languages available. For example, my primary instrument is guitar. I've been playing for years and have a good grasp of it. However I recently took up the violin so that I could learn to fiddle and play some bluegrass and Irish folk tunes. I still can't play a single tune well on the violin but my knowledge of string instruments and music theory is certainly making my adoption faster than someone who is starting from the very beginning. However one must be careful with breadth. I could try to learn to play the mandolin after I've "finished," with the violin. And perhaps a banjo after that. However mastery requires a deep, intimate knowledge: you have to spend time with an instrument, learn its quirks, and practice with it every day. Even the best guitar players practice every day. You don't have enough time in this world to master every stringed instrument. Harder still is the transition to a completely different class of instrument. Mastering drums and guitar is not impossible but rather difficult as knowledge of one doesn't offer much in learning about the other. Learning C is one thing but learning Common Lisp is learning an entirely different model of computation. Having a grasp of the fundamental theories will help some here but nothing you know about C compilers will help you to understand CL (and vice versa). So be even more suspicious of the depth of a programmer's knowledge if they list more than a few languages on their resume if those languages span entire classes of computational models. And I don't think there's enough time in this world for even a very competent programmer to say they are a master of more than one or two languages. Update Added a paragraph on computational models and expanded the instrument metaphor.
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    Well said. Thanks for your thoughts.
NAFV_P 13y ago
"C programming is a craft that takes years to perfect. A reasonably sharp person can learn the basics of C quite quickly. But it takes much longer to master the nuances of the language and to write enough programs, and enough different programs, to become an expert. In natural language terms, this is the difference between being able to order a cup of coffee in Paris, and (on the Metro) being able to tell a native Parisienne where to get off." The behaviour of this quote from the beginning of Linden's book is, strictly speaking, undefined. I interpreted it as being able to give instructions to a native Parisian, in order to find the nearest red-light district.
- kenko 13y ago
  "where to get off" has at least three interpretations---the one you note, one in which you insulte the Parisienne (why a Parisienne? Why not the English word, which has the advantage of being gender-neutral, "Parisian"?), and the (presumably) intended interpretation, what exit to use.
  - NAFV_P 13y ago
    "why a Parisienne? Why not the English word, which has the advantage of being gender-neutral, "Parisian"?" I believe I did use the term Parisian.... I could have used the even more offensive (joke) term "parisite".
- raverbashing 13y ago
  Humm, not really I'd say asking for a cup of coffee in Paris is "Hello World" Most of C programmers would know how to tell "a native Parisienne where to get off" But that level of C is akin to write "Mes emmerdes" (youtube it, there are probably more complex songs, but I can't remember now)
geoka9 13y ago
> It seems to me that learning 1 - 2 languages to this level of detail is worthwhile. I think it's feasible with an "old-school" (compact) language like C or Go. But take something like C++ or Scala, for example, and the task quickly becomes impossible.

sanderjd 13y ago

It's wonderfully frustrating that there is truly so much to learn that even the study of programming languages, which is an incredibly tiny field relative to the whole of human knowledge, it is still necessary to make depth vs. breadth trade-offs. I find your choice to focus more on depth appealing, but almost immediately feel a sense of loss for all the breadth such a focus would require giving up. I think a better balance may be to master things that are widely relevant at depth, while giving less focus to things that are very specific. Put another way: depth for "essence", breadth for "accident". Of the items on slide 181 of the presentation, only calling conventions, memory model, and probably optimization seem like "essence" to me, ie. every program you ever write in any language will benefit from deep knowledge of those topics. The rest of the items are somewhat arbitrary and very specific to the particular history of the C language itself.

agentultra 13y ago
It boils down to learning a handful of languages enough that you can make some meaningful contributions or a single language deep enough that you can have a meaningful discussion. Neither approach forgoes learning fundamental theory. I equate learning to master C like learning to master a particular instrument like the violin; it requires knowledge of the instrument's construction, the physics of how it produces sound, and a host of other details that must be mastered before one can really make it sing. I can study music theory for years and it won't help me play the violin well. It will make composition easier and assist me as I adapt myself to the instrument. However one still has to master the instrument and I see the two being complementary and distinct skills. The metaphor holds together when you start thinking about the breadth of languages available. For example, my primary instrument is guitar. I've been playing for years and have a good grasp of it. However I recently took up the violin so that I could learn to fiddle and play some bluegrass and Irish folk tunes. I still can't play a single tune well on the violin but my knowledge of string instruments and music theory is certainly making my adoption faster than someone who is starting from the very beginning. However one must be careful with breadth. I could try to learn to play the mandolin after I've "finished," with the violin. And perhaps a banjo after that. However mastery requires a deep, intimate knowledge: you have to spend time with an instrument, learn its quirks, and practice with it every day. Even the best guitar players practice every day. You don't have enough time in this world to master every stringed instrument. Harder still is the transition to a completely different class of instrument. Mastering drums and guitar is not impossible but rather difficult as knowledge of one doesn't offer much in learning about the other. Learning C is one thing but learning Common Lisp is learning an entirely different model of computation. Having a grasp of the fundamental theories will help some here but nothing you know about C compilers will help you to understand CL (and vice versa). So be even more suspicious of the depth of a programmer's knowledge if they list more than a few languages on their resume if those languages span entire classes of computational models. And I don't think there's enough time in this world for even a very competent programmer to say they are a master of more than one or two languages. Update Added a paragraph on computational models and expanded the instrument metaphor.
- sanderjd 13y ago
  Well said. Thanks for your thoughts.

NAFV_P 13y ago

"C programming is a craft that takes years to perfect. A reasonably sharp person can learn the basics of C quite quickly. But it takes much longer to master the nuances of the language and to write enough programs, and enough different programs, to become an expert. In natural language terms, this is the difference between being able to order a cup of coffee in Paris, and (on the Metro) being able to tell a native Parisienne where to get off." The behaviour of this quote from the beginning of Linden's book is, strictly speaking, undefined. I interpreted it as being able to give instructions to a native Parisian, in order to find the nearest red-light district.

kenko 13y ago
"where to get off" has at least three interpretations---the one you note, one in which you insulte the Parisienne (why a Parisienne? Why not the English word, which has the advantage of being gender-neutral, "Parisian"?), and the (presumably) intended interpretation, what exit to use.
- NAFV_P 13y ago
  "why a Parisienne? Why not the English word, which has the advantage of being gender-neutral, "Parisian"?" I believe I did use the term Parisian.... I could have used the even more offensive (joke) term "parisite".
raverbashing 13y ago
Humm, not really I'd say asking for a cup of coffee in Paris is "Hello World" Most of C programmers would know how to tell "a native Parisienne where to get off" But that level of C is akin to write "Mes emmerdes" (youtube it, there are probably more complex songs, but I can't remember now)

geoka9 13y ago

> It seems to me that learning 1 - 2 languages to this level of detail is worthwhile. I think it's feasible with an "old-school" (compact) language like C or Go. But take something like C++ or Scala, for example, and the task quickly becomes impossible.