troydj

5 ms·

1.
by troydj 4y ago
He says in the book (right after introducing that example), "if you have trouble with import std;, try the old-fashioned and conventional #include <iostream> ..." And he shows a snippet with that.
2.
by troydj 7y ago
To really appreciate the need for awk, imagine writing one-liners and scripts in the late 80s where Perl or Python weren't present. The associative arrays in awk were a game changer. Of course, today there is no need to use awk for m
3.
Bjarne Stroustrup Interview at CppCon 2018(channel9.msdn.com)
4 points by troydj 8y ago|0 comments
4.
by troydj 8y ago
Thank you for sharing your methodology. A pointer to the study that you're probably thinking of is research done by Paul Nation and Robert Waring (vocabulary researchers). They cite their own 1985 study and a 1989 study with the follo
5.
by troydj 9y ago
Maybe if we all start sending tweets to @timoreilly he will reconsider this very unfortunate decision...
6.
by troydj 9y ago
One of the things I'll miss is the "upgrade a registered O'Reilly print book to an ebook for $4.99" option. Always nice to have both the print and [affordable] ebook versions. Bummer.
7.
by troydj 9y ago
One way would be: perl -nae'printf("%s:%s %s\n",$F[2],$F[0],$F[1])'
8.
by troydj 9y ago
I learned Awk in 1988 before Perl was around (on our systems, anyway). It was super useful at the time. But if you know Perl and Perl is available on your system, there's certainly not a compelling need for writing standalone, multi-
9.
by troydj 10y ago
Yes, agreed! You'd think most of the CS people in a room listening to a Lamport lecture, of all things, would've at some point in their education taken a theory of computation or similar course. The notation Lamport was asking a
10.
by troydj 10y ago
Linus' "good" version has a McCabe cyclomatic complexity of 2, whereas the "bad" version has a value of 3. So, objectively, one could argue there is improvement there (albeit small). Validation of the "good&
11.
by troydj 10y ago
It seems like the purpose of this book significantly overlaps with Cal Newport's _So Good They Can't Ignore You: Why Skills Trump Passion in the Quest for Work You Love_ [1]. Newport gave corresponding talks on this topic at Goo
12.
by troydj 11y ago
I wouldn't go so far to say that the Dragon Book is outdated and irrelevant. (I'm assuming you're referring to the 2nd edition from 2006.) Unless you're focusing on back-end optimization and code generation techniques
13.
by troydj 11y ago
Don't be depressed. This is normal. All memories are subject to gradual decay. The best way to prevent this decay is by reviewing and testing yourself on the material you want to remember. Unless one reviews or uses specific knowle
14.
by troydj 11y ago
The original abstract for the talk (which summarizes the slides) were posted by the author here: http://blog.cr.yp.to/20150314-optimizing.html
15.
by troydj 11y ago
I'm waiting for jgrahamc to post a 40% off No Starch Press coupon code for the loyal HN readers (in celebration of his newly-published book, that is :).
16.
by troydj 12y ago
Nice recommendation. Looks like the 3rd edition was just published this month. Bryant's blog describes the updates to the 3rd edition here: http://csappbook.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-third-edition-will...
17.
by troydj 12y ago
Andreas Zeller, original author of GNU DDD, has a good book called "Why Programs Fail: A Guide to Systematic Debugging", 2nd edition. http://www.amazon.com/Why-Programs-Fail-Systematic-Debugging...
18.
by troydj 12y ago
Noticed that the price is double the price of the 1st edition. Is that due to the number of authors doubling? ;)
19.
by troydj 12y ago
A more up-to-date and complete treatment of these exact topics can be found in the recently-published book, _Make it Stick: The Science of Successful Learning_ ( http://www.amazon.com/dp/0674729013/ ). For those th
20.
The Vacuum Transistor: A Device Made of Nothing(spectrum.ieee.org)
216 points by troydj 12y ago|53 comments
21.
by troydj 13y ago
Part of the confusion, I think, is that people unnecessarily require "perfect pronunciation, hearing, and intonation" in their definition of "fluency". You mentioned that your wife is fluent in French, but does not have
22.
by troydj 13y ago
There is also a reference to this method on page 61 of SICP (footnote 40 of exercise 1.18). http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/full-text/book/book-Z-H-11.html...