Timeline for If you could only have one programming related book on your bookshelf what would it be and why?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 2, 2014 at 12:18 | history | edited | limist | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Looks like my referenced post was deleted. I'm sure the willful destruction of knowledge has some reason... |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 20:46 | comment | added | luis.espinal | @con't - also, I'd warn against using a language as a pedagogical tool because it is mainstream. Mainstream changes every 2-3 years, and with Java, the language is simple, but the task is in learning the JVM, the libraries and the architecture. I'd say to learn Java and .NET enterprise development at the 4th year of college. And I believe (I know, subjective) that is important to provide rigor early on. We have waaaay too many point-n-click programmers out there who needed some rigor early on. I've made a lot of money cleaning the crap they left behind, but still ;) | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 20:40 | comment | added | luis.espinal | @con't - That is, I suggest the SICP not because of Scheme, but because of its pedagogical content. I would actually had suggested to start with assembly (people did that quite successfully), but there are no assembly books (and probably there will never be) like the SICP. The closest would be Knuth's encyclopedia (and that would be an overkill.) As for java, I've worked with it for 12 years, and I wouldn't recommend it for teaching.. gets the job done, but it is horrendous as a PL. C, Python or Ruby are much better designed languages. | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 20:37 | comment | added | luis.espinal | @Cervo - It's a valid concern, and it does seem like an overkill, but (and this is a completely subjective position I acknowledge), I strongly believe it provides a deeper foundation than one typically finds with other mainstream approaches. The jury is still out with MIT now that they have switched to Python (some of the reasons being that it also has FP capabilities and it's strongly amenable for scientific computing and robotics, which Scheme isn't.) Nothing wrong with Python (I actually love the language), but the jury would be out till a Python'esque version of SICP comes out. | |
| Oct 3, 2011 at 17:44 | comment | added | Cervo | @luis.espinal SICP seems overkill for introductory programming (unless we are talking graduate school). There is a reason MIT dropped the SICP course as its intro course.... Still I agree it is valuable to go through this book (and do the exercises...) but doing that in a standard college semester would be tough for even an above average student. Also intro with Java/Python/Ruby/C is more relevant to the work force, the sooner you get someone used to imperative languages the better... SICP is great after that to expand your horizons. But might be discouraging as an intro course... | |
| Jan 21, 2011 at 21:28 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki | ||
| Dec 17, 2010 at 0:55 | history | edited | limist | CC BY-SA 2.5 | Added links to video, text. |
| Oct 18, 2010 at 16:06 | comment | added | luis.espinal | All hail the SICP. IMO, it should be the textbook for a mandatory introductory programming course in all CS schools. It would certainly weed out people who can't really cut it in programming (much less CS) while strengthening CS and programming skills to those with potential. | |
| Oct 7, 2010 at 23:01 | history | answered | limist | CC BY-SA 2.5 |