I think this is very advanced theoretical book as per hacker news standard.
I don't get that at all. From what I've seen over the years, there is a clear divide on HN between the people who lean towards the "you don't need any theory at all" people and the "you need to know all the theory to do anything" people, with there being a slight bias towards the latter in general.
Interesting how perspectives differ on this site. I guess it's similar to how some people argue that HN is overrun with government hating libertarians, while other people think the site is overrun by granola eating, tree hugging, hippie communists. :-)
Haha I think I know what camp you're in, since no one claims you need to know _all_ the theory to do _anything_. ;-)
While we disagree on which group is larger on HN, I'd be open to consider that maybe our difference in perception is entirely explained by selective memory (in the sense that you're more likely to remember when people rubbed you the wrong way than when they agreed with you).
Interestingly enough, I don't really think of myself as falling specifically into either. But I'm a pragmatist, so I lean a bit towards the idea that you can get things done without necessarily always needing a lot of theoretical knowledge. BUT at the same time, I think that having a solid theoretical understanding is almost always desirable, and all other things being equal, I'd rather know the theory than not. :-)
I'd be open to consider that maybe our difference in perception is entirely explained by selective memory (in the sense that you're more likely to remember when people rubbed you the wrong way than when they agreed with you).
Agreed. I would think that is probably a big part of it.