News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by peterb on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @10:56AM (#2607522)
I agree 100%. K&R is the standard all authors should strive for. The length of these books is also our fault. Bigger books sell better. I hope there is a backlash brewing. K&R, Little Schemer, Smalltalk Best Practice Patterns, were all great small books.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by loy22 on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @12:22PM (#2607980)
I tried to learn programming but I was discouraged by the utter lack of pedagogy in the books I've picked so far. The author pretty much nailed it.

I even tried Land of Lisp only because it was supposed to be fun, but unfortunately it used this horrible and widespread format where the author writes all the code for you and proceeds to an explanation.

There is no creation (or creative problem solving) ! And creation is the fun component, it should be the point of programming.

Later, I read the Little Schemer and I found it very fun and engaging. Because I had to think by myself, I realized I learned more in 30 minutes with the Little Schemer than 200 pages of Land of Lisp.

My first attempt at programming was with an horribly dull PHP book. 5 stars on Amazon, but it was again the same format where the author writes all the code for you and then explains it, and did not provide any exercise.

I think the perfect programming book would be a mix of the Little Schemer and K&R : the quiz format for the theory coupled with challenging exercises. There is no greater reward and way to learn than solving problems by yourself.

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by tehjones on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @02:19PM (#2608580)
Personally I cannot learn from a book where I am just given concepts and supposed to find a solution. I find reading other code to be a much better learning method.

I have seen most students prefer to presented with a whole working program and then expand on it in the challenges the book provides. The author of this article was expressing a desire for shorter books that give full code listings rather than code snippets and challenges that you seem to prefer.

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by dkarl on Thursday June 02, 2011 @11:35AM (#2612406)
For challenging Scheme exercises, check out the sample programming assignments for SICP: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/psets/index.html

SICP itself (http://mitpress.mit.edu/sicp/) is worth checking out, too. I doubt you would find the book itself to your taste, but there are programming exercises at the end of each section.

Also, for what it's worth, my favorite language for working Project Euler problems is Scheme, by far.

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by CWuestefeld on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @11:56AM (#2607840)
Agreed. Obviously K&R is a benchmark. But I'm also thinking of "Effective C++". This was a fairly thin book, but after reading it, I realized that I didn't know half as much about C++ as I thought I did, and in its relatively small number of pages, it taught me a hugely disproportionate amount of how C++ really works.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by knshaum on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @06:30PM (#2609691)
"Accelerated C++" is another good one. A bigger book than K&R, but not outrageously so, and much thinner than Stroustrup's or Lippman's texts. Rather than teaching C and then layering C++ constructs on top, it starts with idiomatic C++, then drills down to the C foundations as needed.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by adambyrtek on Thursday June 02, 2011 @07:02PM (#2614379)
I love the format of the whole "Effective ..." series, especially the fact that the books are focused on best practices instead of individual language features.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by edw on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @12:32PM (#2608030)
I might never write another line of C in my life, but the K&R book will always have a place on my shelf due to many of the reasons given by the article's author. _The Unix Programming Environment_ and _The Practice of Programming_ are two other books that serve as inspirations, both as a writer and a programmer.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by silentbicycle on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:51PM (#2609007)
The common element here is Brian Kernighan. _The Awk Programming Language_ is excellent, too.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by phren0logy on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @11:37AM (#2607739)
I cannot speak to the accuracy of sales vs size, but I wholeheartedly support smaller, better books. I have seen this same trend in textbooks, and it's maddening. Nobody can work through an 800-page textbook on one semester, and it's easy to get the feeling that most of these are exhaustive for their own sake.

Smaller, better books please. I have been, and will continue to, vote with my wallet.

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by seanm on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @12:09PM (#2607908)
I found Little Schemer to be too elementary. I feel comfortable with lexical scoping and recursion, I was actually looking for more meat (let vs. let* vs. letrec). I'd recommend "Teach Yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days".
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by edw on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @12:29PM (#2608017)
_The Scheme Programming Language_ by Kent Dybvig is also very good. _Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs_ is my preferred "how to think in Scheme" book. I would recommend against _How to Design Programs_, which is entirely too pandering and focused on imperative programming for my tastes.

http://www.scheme.com/tspl3/

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by m0nastic on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @01:25PM (#2608282)
For what it's worth, the second edition of How To Design Programs drops the imperative programming[1] and is available online[2].

I can't comment about the pandering though.

[1] "This edition of the book drops the design of imperative programs. The old chapters remain available on-line"

[2] http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/HtDP2e/Draft/index.html

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by spacemanaki on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @06:00PM (#2609561)
Is that just the first few chapters of the 2nd ed?

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/HtDP2e/Draft/i1-2.html

Many chapters after that one are just blank.

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by m0nastic on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @08:05PM (#2609967)
Yeah, I'm not sure. That's the "unstable" version, and it looks like some of the chapter's are missing (everything after part 6).
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by ubasu on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @01:09PM (#2608212)
It seems there's a fourth edition:

http://www.scheme.com/tspl4/

Also, Wikipedia says that "Teach Yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days" is outdated in some parts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_Yourself_Scheme_in_Fixnum...

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by sigzero on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:16PM (#2608864)
TSPL4 covers RSR6 which didn't go over very well with the community. TSPL3 is probably the better bet there.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by omaranto on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @09:57PM (#2610279)
Did you take a look at The Seasoned Schemer, the sequel to the Little Schemer? It might have been better suited to you.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by thinkingeric on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @09:48PM (#2610261)
'The Little Schemer' is not intended to be a tutorial on Scheme. To quote the preface, "The goal of this book is to teach the reader to think recursively". Similarly, the other books in the series have well-defined goals.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by fogus on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @11:12AM (#2607606)

    Bigger books sell better.
Is this true? I was always under the impression that bigness was used to justify a higher price point.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by ChuckMcM on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @06:36PM (#2609708)
Its absolutely true. The exact same effect occurs in restaurants and floral arrangements.

There is a fixed cost, we'll call it X, to get the {book/meal/arrangement) made, the marginal cost of {paper/food/flowers) is small relative to the fixed cost and yet is the dominant factor in perceived value.

Understanding this you can use it to your advantage. You can boost the percieved value of a book or meal or floral arrangement by boosting its pages, vegetables, or flowers. The recipient will feel better about getting and the buyer will feel better about paying for something with a higher perceived value.

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by fogus on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @07:51PM (#2609925)
Wow, great answer. I would love to read more about the psychology of this. Does it differ across cultures?
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by Calamitous on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @11:36AM (#2607729)
I suspect it's a perception issue... the price difference between a slim programming book and a fat one is minimal. Dropping $50-$60 on a tome feels like a better value if you have to wheel it out with a dolly, instead of slipping it in your pocket.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by Apocryphon on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @01:07PM (#2608205)
I have to concur, unfortunately. If a tutorial book adds a huge reference section, I'd feel that it's a better deal for the same price- I may never look at the appendices, but I'll feel that I possibly could, just in case. Publishers ought to fix the pricing in general.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by bgruber on Wednesday June 01, 2011 @03:49PM (#2608997)
regardless of whether it's true, greenspun reported that it's what the publishers believe:

"It is an article of faith in the computer publishing that bigger books sell better. They take up more space on the shelf and readers with a tech problem find a bigger book comforting. Readers aren't really sure what is wrong with their computer and they only have a few minutes in the bookstore so they figure the thickest book is the most likely to contain the solution."

http://philip.greenspun.com/wtr/dead-trees/story

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by Poiesis on Thursday June 02, 2011 @03:34AM (#2611084)
Also consider that on a bookstore shelf, the bigger the book is, the more space it has to advertise itself. It is its own advertisement.
Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by Kroem3r on Thursday June 02, 2011 @06:52AM (#2611418)
One of the points of unappreciated genius of C is that when I used it as a reference, the example code often had something to do with the issue that I was currently facing.

It was if those guys had used the language for a few years building a diversity of things with it; kept notes; and then really thought about the future reader. I'd have thought that it was a revolutionary approach, not a historical oddity.

Re:Blunt and necessary review of programming language books. by thisrod on Thursday June 02, 2011 @09:23PM (#2614788)
It was if those guys had used the language for a few years

I hope that's a joke. If you don't know who K and R are, and where they wrote the book, you should look it up.