Books Programmers Don't Really Read But Recommend | Hacker News Reader

Books Programmers Don't Really Read But Recommend

billthelizard.com

316 pointsashishgandhi157 comments

I actively disrecommend Code Complete. I bought the first edition back when I uncritically acquired everything with a Jolt Award logo. It's a pile of tautologies and common sense. It tries to teach stuff that is best learned through experience.

K&R was my second C book, and I love it for its authenticity, but I learned more from Kelly & Pohl's "A Book on C".

The Mythical Man Month I read in anger after a project failed. It not only resonated with me, but cheered me up.

Programming Pearls can't be "read" in the usual way, it's something I flip through when facing particular problems, but generally I savor it (ended up selling my copy after my 2 year backpacking trip, back when I swore I'll never write software again .. oops!)

Effective Java (C++) are practitioner lore. Their teachings have been subsumed by the language community and you can see it in code bases.

My advice is to learn to use your favorite editor with a TAGS file, then go navigate through a large open source project, and extend it in some minor way. That's more profitable than enduring any book on "design".

I never cared for "Pragmatic" or "Test-driven" or "Agile" publications.

> My advice is to learn to use your favorite editor with a TAGS file, then go navigate through a large open source project, and extend it in some minor way. That's more profitable than enduring any book on "design".

This is the truth.

On the other hand, I learned from experience that people do not take this advice when you give it. Maybe plunging into large codebase is daunting, I don't know. Now I give them http://www.aosabook.org/en/ and tell them to choose an interesting project and then read it.

That book looks excellent - perhaps if all large open source projects included something similar, they'd get more contributors? I suspect that jumping into code with no overview of it's structure is going to be slower than if you have a clear framework to hang things on, which might explain the reluctance.

Their follow up book also looks good: http://www.aosabook.org/en/makingsoftware.html

Code Complete is a great book, and I don't think there are any other books out which cover the nuts and bolts in such a thorough way.

I also recommend "Rapid Development", by the same author. It sounds like a fuzzy, Agilish cliche, but a more accurate title is probably "How not to fuck up your project." All of the usual bugbears are there - technical debt, creeping requirements, gold plating, etc.

> Code Complete is a great book, and I don't think there are any other books out which cover the nuts and bolts in such a thorough way.

Eh, I don't recommend Code Complete, either, though not for the same reasons as mahmud.

You say you don't know of a book "which cover the nuts and bolts in such a thorough way". I can name one that covers almost the same territory:

Kernighan and Pike's excellent The Practice of Programming.

You could certainly argue that it doesn't cover the same territory in such a "thorough" way, if by thorough we mean "needlessly bloated". The Practice of Programming manages to say, in 288 pages, everything useful that McConnell needs 960 pages to spit out.

The Practice of Programming is the last book I can think of that came out of the old tradition of software books that valued concision and clarity of communication above all else. It's short and precise in the way that "The C Programming Language" is short and precise compared to modern PL books. Code Complete is a product of modern software book marketing; it takes forever to say anything, so that it consumes maximum space on a bookstore shelf, and attempts to justify its price in weight rather than ideas.

I think that's an unnecessarily harsh review. From looking at the table of contents, it looks to me like Code Complete covers a lot more territory, eg. there doesn't appear to be anything on code reviews in The Practice of Programming.

That said, I'm going to have to find a copy of it now and compare them :)

I loved the size of code complete but the brevity of the content itself. I didn't read from cover to cover, but always had the copy on the table and read a chapter each morning.

No, there are new, concise book, though I agree they're rare:

The Art of Readable Code (by Googlers)

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Readable-Code-Dustin-Boswell/dp/05...

Having read both I have to respectfully but firmly disagree.

The code examples in The Practice of Programming are atrocious, and I mean it - they are full of really, really bad naming and arcane abbreviations and thus unreadable code.

How is this for readable and maintainable code? (Random code example from The Practice of Programming, copied verbatim letter by letter)

    /* delname: remove first matching nameval from nvtab */
    int delname(char *name)
    {
        int i;
        
        for (i = 0; i < nvtab.nval; i++)
            if (strcmp(nvtab.nameval[i].name, name) == 0) {
                memmove(nvtab.nameval+i, nvtab.nameval+i+1),
                    (nvtab.nval-(i+1)) * sizeof(Nameval);
                nvtab.nval--;
                return 1;
            }
        return 0;
    }

- Confusing function explanation in a custom format. What is nameval? What is nvtab?

- Missing curly braces in the for loop

- Confusing long lines (line starting with memmove())

- Confusing inline transformations: nvtab.nameval+i+1, nvtab.nval-(i+1) directly in function arguments. What do they mean?

- Bad, bad naming (nvtab, nameval)

- Inconsistent case (nameval vs Nameval)

This is just ONE RANDOM EXAMPLE, mind you. The book is atrocious, I don't recommend it to anyone.

Code Complete is much thicker but that's the only disadvantage. It's not bloated, it's simply more comprehensive, it's consistent and teaches to write actual readable code.

I've never read that book, but I've worked with a lot of C. That code seems perfectly maintainable as an experienced C programmer.

- Confusing function explanation in a custom format. What is nameval? What is nvtab?

nvtab is obviously a name/value table. nameval is an array of Nameval structures. nval is the count of Nameval structures in nvtab.nameval.

- Missing curly braces in the for loop

This isn't required by C. It's an often-debated subject in style guides for C.

- Confusing long lines (line starting with memmove())

How is that confusing? Lines end when you see a ; that isn't inside a set of parens.

- Confusing inline transformations: nvtab.nameval+i+1, nvtab.nval-(i+1) directly in function arguments. What do they mean?

What do you mean, "what do they mean"? (int)-((int)+1) seems pretty obvious. Working with memory addresses doesn't seem a foreign concept.

- Bad, bad naming (nvtab, nameval)

nvtab seems like a reasonable name for a name value table. nameval seems like a reasonable name for something that holds a bunch of Nameval structs.

- Inconsistent case (nameval vs Nameval)

nameval and Nameval are different. If you used consistent case, the program wouldn't work. nameval is an array containing Namevals. Nameval is a struct.

This just seems like a case of you not really understanding C rather than a case of experienced C programmers writing C that other C programmers could maintain.

I had a post with most of the same stuff you said saved for after lunch but you beat me to it with a more precise explanation. I haven't touched C in years but it wasn't difficult to understand the code, though a couple of comments would have made it quicker to parse.

Perhaps this is the effect that high level languages are having on developers - anything that DoesntHaveExplicitNames is classed as confusing and syntax flexibility is seen as wrong. In the web development field, I often get weird looks for writing one line if statement bodies. A ternary operator usually yields furrowed eyebrows for a few seconds. An issue of style over substance, IMO.

Then again, I'm sure that ASM developers looked at C developers the same way.

Probably, the key part of what you said, is "couple of comments". Makes a huge difference if the same convention is on,say, 100,000 LOC, and the people who wrote it didnt give proper comments and left the company! :P

Speaking on naming conventions: This is the name of a class in Chromium source code (C++): 'BufferedSpdyFramerVisitorInterface' . The codebase is that meticulous! For a guy who wanted to learn about browser implementation,and downloaded the codebase,this is good.

These meticulous naming conventions- has it anything to do with using a full-blown ide vs vim?

> These meticulous naming conventions- has it anything to do with using a full-blown ide vs vim?

What would you think that?

If it's because of auto-complete, please understand that this is 2012, and vim is not [just] vi. There are several different flavors of auto-complete available in vim; some built in, some as extensions.

Not to mention that there's eclim for full-scale Eclipse completion and ctags which provides almost the same functionality (though not as intelligently).

C programmer are so used to terrible code that it doesn't even stand out to them.

The thing that sticks out for me is that there's a bug in that code - a syntax error no less - and none of the C programmers commenting seem to have spotted it. (hint: read the memmove line a bit more closely)

I don't think you need much more evidence that the syntax is confusing.

> The thing that sticks out for me is that there's a bug in that code - a syntax error no less - and none of the C programmers commenting seem to have spotted it. (hint: read the memmove line a bit more closely)

That typo was introduced in Revisor's transcription; it doesn't appear in the original. I checked when I first read his comment, 8 or 9 hours ago. It hardly seemed worth mentioning; typos happen and it had nothing to do with his argument.

> I don't think you need much more evidence that the syntax is confusing.

Someone unfamiliar with the language introducing a one character typo during a character-by-character transcription from a book is evidence that "the syntax is confusing"?

What an odd yardstick to use.

The point is that the code is hard to understand. In this case it's a bracket misplaced, so the compiler will pick it up immediately, but if it's a misplaced +1 or index then you won't notice until you get hacked with a buffer overflow.

Now if you put each argument on it's own line, or use reasonable variable names - something that C programmers seem to fight against - neither of those bugs happen, because you can just look at the code and see the problem straight away.

Not only do I understand that code, and agree it's reasonable C code, I suspect you made a mistake when copying the memmove line. I think it should be:

  memmove(nvtab.nameval+i, nvtab.nameval+i+1,
          (nvtab.nval-(i+1)) * sizeof(Nameval));

Experience C programmers will know memmove - it's been a long time since I even saw the signature, but I thought it was going to be source, destination and size. (Looked it up just now to be sure.) These "inline transformations" are common on addresses in C.

I personally like braces around for loops, but things like Nameval being the struct type for a nameval variable is common C practice.

As emidln points out, your complaints seem to suggest unfamiliarity with C on your part rather than any flaws with that code, which looks perfectly fine to me. To his responses I'll only add:

> Confusing function explanation in a custom format.

It's a straightforward explanation in 6 words of English of what the function does. That's not a "custom format", that's a simple and concise introduction to the function. Far preferable to some mess of nonsense boilerplate XML.

Also worth mentioning is that in the context of the book that function sits in part of a larger discussion which, IIRC, gives the definition Nameval struct (that's definitely not some kind of accidental case flub), talks about the structure of nvtab, etc.

I'm absolutely shocked that someone can defend this code example. OK, you say it's readable for an experienced C programmer which I'm not. But is that really the best practice you want to teach other programmers? Fourfold inline computation? Cryptic variable names like nvtab.nval? No curly braces around a block where they are optional but prone to error if missing? Comments that use deep local jargon (what is nameval, what is nvtab)?

Defend it all you will (and also downvote just because you disagree, why thank you), I stand by what I said: The Practice of Programming is a harmful book and cannot be compared to Code Complete which is much more thoughtful and has unspeakably more attention to detail in naming, syntax, logic, programmer's psychology, project scope, everything.

> But is that really the best practice you want to teach other programmers?

Apart from using braces for `for` loops, yes.

> Fourfold inline computation?

This snippet

    void *dest = blah blah;
    void *src = blah blah;    
    size_t cnt = blah blah;
    memmove(dest, src, cnt);

isn't any different from memmove(blah blah, blah blah, blah blah) if you program in C. Introducing unnecessary noise doesn't contribute to code clarity.

> Cryptic variable names like nvtab.nval?

Suggest a better name. name_value_table.number_values? And give me one good reason how is this better?

There is a whole camp up in arms against abbreviating `count` as `cnt`. Though they never told me what issue they have understanding that `cnt` means `count`.

The only issues I have with abbreviations is they might introduce typos if you choose confusing ones. nval, nvtab etc aren't confusing, not by a mile. If you are confused by them, expanding them isn't going to help you either.

> Comments that use deep local jargon (what is nameval, what is nvtab)?

A localized code snippet uses local jargon. If you disagree, I would love to see your suggestions on improving them.

> Defend it all you will (and also downvote just because you disagree, why thank you), I stand by what I said:

Apart from standing by, show us how do you make it more readable. Your complains so far are fluffs.

> The Practice of Programming is a harmful book and cannot be compared to Code Complete which is much more thoughtful and has unspeakably more attention to detail in naming, syntax, logic, programmer's psychology, project scope, everything.

Sounds like Code Complete is programming for people who can't program.

I thought that CC was good when it came out, but it's gotten pretty long in the tooth. There needs to be a modern version.

Have to agree on Code Complete. The first edition was a load of waterfall bollocks and I couldn't believe anyone wrote code like that. It actively put me off a "proper" programming career. The second edition, apparently, reduced that shite, but by that point I wondered "if the author is just reproducing dogma, why bother?"

Code Complete was published in 1993, so I think it can be forgiven its emphasis on waterfall development. It back its advice by citing real studies of software project, though the projects were from the 1960/70s at big companies like IBM.

Like I said, its a book about dogma and cherry-picked studies. The dogma and studies were wrong. So if you want books about broken dogma and studies, read Code Complete.

I am sure that for you it was a pile of tautologies and common sense, but I think most people graduating with an undergraduate degree would benefit from reading Code Complete as they start their career.

I have to admit I thought it worth the time to read. It is an easy read. There are certainly books on this list that provide >10x the value, but take >10x the effort to assimilate.

  >> It tries to teach stuff that is best learned through experience.

Experience is a harsh teacher.

To quote the pragmatic programmer, "bullets are cheap".

An engineer building a bridge doesn't have an easy way to just try it out. Someone hacking together something at home, or an internal facing product at work can learn by experience.

"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other, and scarce in that" -- Benjamin Franklin

If this were a book, it would probably go on the "Books Programmers Claim to Have Read" list.

Agreed on Code Complete. Never understood why people thought it was worth reading. Much better is Steve Maguire's Writing Solid Code.

> It's a pile of tautologies and common sense.

I was about to say the same exact thing, but was too afraid to because of the backlash.

That book has little to no use. It's a book you would give to someone that's a -1 level programmer on a 1 to 10 level scale, to bring him up to a 1. Really, it is.

I've always wondered if its recommended because people were not reading it, or if there is a case of general incompetence (the type that would get you fired, or not hired) in the general programming pool.

I read it when I was about a 1 on a 1-10 scale, and it probably helped bring me up to a two - which is a worthwhile ROI on a book.

I think that is why it is so recommended it is intended for people that are just entering into programming not individuals who have learned the common sense through experience as such it's value is very much dependent on where you are at in programming when you read it.

Thank you! I'm beginning to think all the Code Complete recommendations are a large scale troll-in-progress on the programming community. I found a copy years ago and opened it up to a random page right around the middle of the book. I was then greeted with a half-page or longer explanation of how the condition of a while loop is only evaluated once per iteration, rather than magically causing the loop to terminate the instant it becomes false. I was just flabbergasted. Again, this wasn't in chapter zero somewhere, but hundreds of pages into the book.

Code Complete prepared me to learn that stuff through experience: http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2007-March/0...

Ya know, I would put a lot of the books most programmers have read on the second list. How many have actually read Code Complete (HN is probably a bad sample)?

I totally agree about Design Patterns. That is perhaps the driest (I mistyped that as "direst"; Freudian slip?) technical book (or any book for that matter) I have ever tried (and failed) to read.

Thing is, technical books don't have to be that way. The early Michael Abrash books (eg [1]) are actually highly entertaining. Effective C++ and Java are eminently readable.

I lot of people recommend CLRS and I've certainly studied from parts of it but I found Skiena's The Algorithm Design Manual to be far more approachable and enjoyable. If your goal is to learn I suggest that. CLRS seems more aimed at people who want or need to know mathematical proofs or are bound for postgrad CS.

TAOCP and the Dragon book are classic examples of books that get recommended all the time (on SO, here and elsewhere) but I'm convinced only a handful have actually read them.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Assembly-Language-Knowledge-Progra...

I work at a government lab and I see TAOCP all the time on managers' shelves, generally in quite pristine condition. Sure looks classy up there.

I studied mathematics in the 80's, a lot of my peers read the library copies routinely, either systematically from cover to cover, for specific reference, or for fun (flip open at random, see what you get) - maths people love maths books and TAOCP is very much a maths book - since then I've rarely met anyone with am actual volume set that seems to have any idea of the contents.

The Dragon book I still own, a paperbound version that's as dog eared as a book can get and still hang together as it was the reference for three of us working on a few compilers of our own back in the day.

The C Book I no longer have despite having bought four to five copies :( That book's never been much of a boomerang.

I worked at one of the national labs and the books I'd see on shelves were usually ones from when folks were still students. The pristine unread books were either bound copies of the person's dissertation, or books he authored.

I read Design Patterns. The reason it was difficult for me was because they introduced many entities at once, and I couldn't keep track. My solution was to draw a diagram of the entities and their relationships as they were mentioned, and take some time to try to absorb them. While not a mathematical paper, it's closer to it than to regular prose, in that it needs to be studied rather than read.

(BTW: I didn't find it all that interesting conceptually, they're the solutions you'll come up with yourself, just collected and named and categorized. Reading how they solved specific problems was interesting - vicarious experience - though some seemed more whimsical than workmanlike.)

Work got me Effective Java to go through, but I don't have enough basic Java knowledge to get through it (I know enough Java to be dangerous). I can program in other languages, though, especially in perl, python, JavaScript and PHP. What book should I read before Effective Java?

Working on a real problem that you want to solve is the best way to learn anything. Don't go through a book -- just bookmark the JDK and make sure you skim through at least String, List, Map, Set, and Iterator.

If you can, find on github some idiomatic code for whatever language you're trying to learn (and take it with a grain of salt -- Spring Framework, for example, has good code in it, but you'd never need to make your solution so complicated because your code doesn't need to be extensible by everyone and their little sister).

When I was in college, I used to program a lot in Java and read a lot of books on Java. I found most of the text lacking and boring. The only book which didn't seem to insult reader's intelligence was Core Java vol 1

http://www.amazon.com/Core-Volume-I-Fundamentals-Edition-Ser...

Read the first 6 chapters very carefully and you will have rock solid foundation. Then skim through event handling, exceptions, streams and generic programming.

The O'Reilly Nutshell books are very good at teaching you just enough to get going in a new language if you have some kind of programming experience in another language.

Thinking in Java[1] is a nice, thorough book geared toward people with prior programming experience trying to learn Java. It's mainly geared at C++ programmers, but knowledge of C++ is by no means a prerequisite and probably only minimally enhances what you get out of the book. The book has been thoroughly vetted by the community, so it includes few errors.

The older, third edition is also free[2].

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Java-Edition-Bruce-Eckel/dp/0...

[2] http://www.mindview.net/Books/TIJ/

"How many have actually read Code Complete (HN is probably a bad sample)?"

Honestly, how many programmers have actually read any book about programming outside of University classes? I'm guessing not many.

On another note, Effective C++ is not only a great book, it is the book which single-handedly made me a much better programmer, and made me understand C++. This is after half a year of training/working in C++. It is my most highly recommended book for really grokking C++. My only regret is that there isn't a similar book for most of the languages I know.

I have! But, I'm a Mathematician invading another world, so probably a bad example...

Honestly, I think there will be a fairly high number of people who regularly read programming books, especially among those who may not have done a CS degree at a university. Personally, I have read dozens of programming books cover-to-cover that are often mentioned on these lists.

Why wouldn't people read programming books outside of university classes? How do you improve your craft? Reading is an instrumental part in growing as a developer and as a human being.

You're talking about whether people should. I'm talking about whether people actually do. As for why people wouldn't read, there's one giant reason: people don't care about programming.

Obviously you care, and I care, and arguably most people reading HN care. But I believe that for a large percentage of programmers, programming is just their job. They do it, they get paid for it, and as long as they can keep getting paid for it, they don't need or care to "grow as a developer". It's just not a priority in their life, or even a goal.

To me, for learning Lisp, nothing beats "COMMON LISP: An Interactive Approach" by Shapiro.

While doing the exercises of course (just browsing the pages is not enough).

In contrast, Practical Common Lisp teaches you very little, however it showcases the power of the language very well, and therefore it's easier to sell.

Well, I didn't find Design Patterns as "dry", it was quite entertaining for me. Maybe because I didn't know anything about design patterns when I read it. On the other hand I reread it about 2 years after the first read and I still found it quite interesting.

Also, I've read the whole Code Complete and it was also interesting and I considered it one of the best books for programmers.

As for CLRS - boring as *%&^%#, I just can't manage to get past the sorting chapter. AFAIR there are not exercise answers so one is left alone when doing them, which mostly disqualifies every such book for anyone who is studying it on it's own, not in a class room.

Skiena's book is far, far better written, but unfortunately some of the exercises are to thought for me so when I'm reading my exercises are from 2-3 chapters behind. Although it's good that there is a wiki with (not always correct) answers.

Haven't read TAOCP.

There's a book called "Programming Language Pragmatics", which is a very readable presentation of PL ideas, how to parse them and how to write compilers for them. I actually read 2/3 of it.

http://www.amazon.com/Programming-Language-Pragmatics-Third-...

This is one of the very few (tech) books I read cover to cover (plus the stuff chapters on disk). If you are intressted in everything from machine up to programming language this is the book for you.

So happy to see Scott get a bit of recognition on HN. This was my graduate PL text last semester, and I enjoyed reading it before class every week.

As a clear, well-written, thorough text on PL, I can't recommend it more strongly.

Another algorithms book that is IMO more approchable and more practical than CLRS is "Algorithms in C++" by Sedgewick.

> How many have actually read Code Complete (HN is probably a bad sample)?

I read the second edition cover to cover, and it was worth all the time I spent on it.

I bought Code Complete on a recommendation, and I find that most of it is stuff I've already picked up after programming for about 10 years.

I had the same experience (but after only about five years). I landed on Code Complete a couple years after devouring The Pragmatic Programmer (and requiring my developers to read it), and generally found some good ideas of varying quality buried on mountains of text. I think most of it is right, but after having some experience in the field, it seemed it was targeting all audiences at once, from the newbie to intermediate programmer but also to organizations, managers, and others related to code. It's hard to make a book that's to the point if the book lacks focus.

That said, I've still used it for my research ... although I can often find other sources that say things better, CC2 has made a good starting point for ideas on how to present ideas about code.

[raises hand]

I've read it cover-to-cover, twice -- the original edition, and the 2nd edition. Brilliant stuff.

Likewise.

How many have actually read Code Complete

Some books are references and some are read throughs. I read Code Complete while in college and thought it really helped my programming. Effective Java is another great book that I've read. The Pragmatic Programmer is another one that I've read that really is worth the time.

Many books are just good references though. Pick it up and read a chapter for example. I think the more experience a programmers gets the less they need to read right through a book. When looking at a book on a particular language I can usually skip the first half because I know the parts that are common across most languages. I only need to know what's different/cool/idiomatic in this particular language.

Algorithm books are another example that falls into mostly the reference category. I don't think I've read any entire algo book, but I have read many chapters from many different algo books that touched on what I needed to learn at the time.

The Dragon book is obligatory course material at several universities (at least here in Uruguay, and Argentina too), so I have a hard time believing only "a handful" have read it (ok, most might have only skimmed it, but that's in the order of hundreds of thousands of students right there).

Ironically, I didn't take the course that required it, and remain ignorant about compilers to this day.

Surprised Tufte's books aren't on the second list. I see programmers referring to Tufte but I doubt many have read his books. I recommend them.

I nominate Stepanov's Elements of Programming to the second list. Beautiful, dense, and a perpetual shelf ornament. Stepanov's papers, especially the one that launched the STL, Fundamentals of Generic Programming (with James Dehnert) is a masterpiece.

I have some favorites that show my age:

Software Tools by Kernighan and Plauger. Can be thought of as the poor-man's Dragon book.

The Practice Of Programming by Kernighan and Pike. As if the UNIX way needed any defending after almost 40 years.

Reliable Software Through Composite Design and Composite/Structured Design by Glenford Myers. You have to get past the ancient languages and flowcharts. These books describe modularity and module strength and coupling and are full of good ideas that still apply.

Database In Depth by C.J. Date, for programmers who haven't read Date's textbook on databases and probably don't need to. I do wish the NoSQL weenies would read Date's Introduction To Database Systems for some history and humility. Database technology has been there, done that, moved on.

I have The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, and it's an inspiring read. Which other books would you recommend for developers?

I second The Practice of Programming. I was also forced to read Pragmatic Programmer for a class in school, I was happy to find that this review sums up my thoughts perfectly about that: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3KBSGSQDBND0N/ref=cm_cr_pr_per...

Another commenter mentioned SICP, I'd add Let Over Lambda and On Lisp which while I haven't read cover to cover I've enjoyed every section I've read so far...

In the end I don't really agree with the author's conclusions that we shouldn't recommend books we haven't read at all. Passing on recommendations of others is defensible--after all, if someone asks for a recommendation they usually want one, not a response of "I don't know" or "Go do your own research!"

Tufte's books are actually very readable and approachable, unlike say TAOCP (which is very well written but so unbelievably dense…). I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to actually read them.

I think many people consider CLRS (Intro to Algorithms) to be far more daunting than it actually is. I have read 80% of it (wasn't interested by some parts, maybe will go back to them) and I have several friends who have done similar read-throughs. Doing all of the proofs is a bit much, but a lot of the exercises are quite good and I would hope that most programmers were familiar with the majority of algorithms described in CLRS. Essentially, I think many people are far too intimidated by CLRS. I actually found it to be quite readable, as textbooks go. Note that I did this before actually taking any algorithms class.

Perhaps the post should be rephrased to "However, unless you have at least a Masters degree in Computer Science (and in Algorithms specifically), I doubt you've HAD TO read more than a few selected chapters from Introduction to Algorithms."

CLRS is essential to any good undergrad CS programme.

Why?

While I have worked through a decent amount of CLRS myself, I think there are much better ways to learn how to solve algorithmic problems. For example, programming competition books like Programming Challenges[1] forces students to solve real-world-ish problems according to performance constraints - a time constraint, either artificial (e.g., problem statement requires execution within 2 seconds) or actual (e.g., choosing an algorithm that is too slow means the sun will burn out before the algorithm terminates).

Books and contests of this nature teach algorithmic thinking, which is far more important than the actual algorithms themselves. It also provides a context for implementing these algorithms, which means the student gets to see the more practical aspects as well: testing it on corner cases, fighting with the chosen implementation language, relying on compiler optimization, etc.

If the goal of the undergraduate program is to develop practitioners of computer science, or even graduates headed for academia, algorithmic thinking is essential. I don't think CLRS is necessarily the best way to teach that, and it certainly isn't the only way.

[1]: http://www.programming-challenges.com/pg.php?page=index

True with a tiny caveat. Having worked through a lot of a "lesser" book: The algorithm design manual, what I have found missing in other books or contest driven practice is any practice of proofs of correctness. While, these are certainly probably completely practically useless in a SWE job, they do provide a good foundation for computer science undergrads to develop some mathematical maturity necessary to explore other branches of mathematics, say in grad school or at work in a more quantitatively demanding job.

It's possible that you're confusing programmers with computer scientists. Not all programmers are computer scientists, and vice-versa.

I understand that the title of the post is about books programmers recommend, but computer science extends far, far beyond programming and learning how to engineer solutions to real-world problems using algorithms.

The important parts to people doing research in algorithms are well-covered in CLRS, and that's part of why it's such an excellent book. It's full of rigorous proofs and a lot of theory, but that's because the point of the text is the design and analysis of algorithms themselves, rather than the application of them.

A university has an obligation to its undergraduate students majoring in computer science to teach them about computer science, and learning to think about designing algorithms, rather than merely learning about using them, is something that I would fully expect as an undergraduate majoring in computer science at any major university.

I suspect this is part of why more and more universities are offering degrees in Software Engineering, where the theoretical aspects of the field are not as important.

I second Programming Challenges. Its one of my all time favourites because it helped me in the past and is my go-to for sample programs when learning new languages.

Well, there are other data structures and algorithms books.

While some schools do suggest the students to buy CLRS, how many actually use it religiously as opposed to the instructors going back to their own lecture notes?

At UBC, we use CLRS for 2 undergrad courses: 3rd and 4th year Algorithm courses. I'm not sure what they use in grad level. Probably still covering CLRS.

That book is very thick and I have my own doubt a 3-month long semester can cover a lot from 1000 pages.

The 2nd and 3rd year undergrad CS algorithms courses at the UofA relied pretty heavily on CLRS, at least when I went through the program.

That was years ago, though, and I've heard anecdotally that now that there aren't 4x as many applicants to the program as there are spaces available, it's been made less rigorous.

The first list includes books that professionals read 2+years into their careers, the latter is a list of books that higher-level students read while doing an undergrad or masters degree.

I'm guessing people lie about the latter because:

    a) they're much drier, and take more discipline to read
    b) they indicate a more rigorous training.

I'm about a year into professional programming with no education, and decided a couple of months back to buy Intro to Algorithms. I've worked through about 3/4 of the chapter, including the exercises (with no answers :-\). It is actually not very dry at all, considering the material!

As suggested elsewhere, read The Algorithm Design Manual, it's much more readable (even if not as rigorous, with math proofs and such).

This story about Steve Jobs is probably relevant:

I was sitting in Steve's office when Lynn Takahashi, Steve's assistant, announced Knuth's arrival. Steve bounced out of his chair, bounded over to the door and extended a welcoming hand.

"It's a pleasure to meet you, Professor Knuth," Steve said. "I've read all of your books."

"You're full of shit," Knuth responded.

(http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&s...)

I sort of wish this were true, though it doesn't sound like something Knuth would say, but apparently it's a myth: http://www.catonmat.net/blog/don-knuth-steve-jobs/

My current list of most recommended books (and that I have read) are, in no particular order:

Seven Languages in Seven Weeks

The Elements of Computing Systems: Building a Modern Computer from First Principles

The Pragmatic Programmer

Programming Challenges

Statistics: A Gentle Introduction (not exactly a programming book, but statistics is good for everyone to know and this is book is easy to read and good at explaining the concepts)

I may also recommend SICP, CTM, The Art of Multiprocessor Programming, The Joy of Clojure, the OReilly book on Intel Threading Building Blocks, Reversing: Secrets of Reverse Engineering, Test Driven Development for Embedded C and others in certain situations but the above list is a general list I would recommend regardless of the persons proficiency level or programming interests.

I pretty much assume that anyone who claims to have read Introduction to Algorithms or TAOCP is using the claim colloquially. I've read parts (large parts, in the case of Introdcution to Algorithms), but neither is a book that I want to read cover-to-cover. They're best used as reference books.

That said, there's definitely a huge number of people who claim to have read Design Patterns, but actually have only read about Singletons and Factories in a Java book. It's a shame, because Design Patterns is one of the most formative books I've read as a programmer. Everyone should read it -- observing the way that patterns are (mis-)used in Java is a poor substitute for wrapping your head around the insights in GoF.

My data stuctures course used AOCP but we skipped the first section on MIX, and didn't use MIX at all. "Just ignore that junk," our prof said.

I have fond memories of the second half of the first volume. I've used the other two volumes as references. The fourth volume I bought, but haven't had time to read in any detail; I might never get to it.

Personally I liked Sedgewick's books on algorithms ("light and fluffy and readable") though I can't stand his coding style.

Funny that SICP isn't on either of the author's lists...

SICP is also oft-recommended, and very hard to work your way all through. But even reading (and working through -- that's essential) selective parts is an excellent experience.

I'm the author of that post. SICP is definitely the book that people most often tell me I missed when they read this. I hadn't even cracked it open at the time I wrote the post, so I didn't feel qualified to comment on it. (I've started reading it since. I haven't finished it yet, but I'd still recommend it to anyone who wants to learn Scheme or functional programming.)

I think that's a book that you can 'read' and you can really read it. By really read, I mean do the exercises.

It makes the book a totally different and more complete experience.

So, this can be a book people read, but not really read. If this makes sense...

The C++ Programming Language and the ARM(Annotated Reference Manual) won me many interviews. After reading those I could claim that I know the language. Sadly, I could never find such concise reference for Python or Java (or Erlang, but there was no documentation anyway).

The Java Programming Language, 4th Ed. (heard 5th in the making).

This is the equivalent to The C++ Programming Language. Written by Ken Arnold, James Gosling, etc.

900+ pages is concise?

Have you read it?

Python: http://www.amazon.com/Python-Essential-Reference-David-Beazl...

Java: http://www.amazon.com/Java-Language-Specification-The-Editio...

What do you mean you can't find them?

688 pages is not concise.

At 1000+ pages, I don't think The C++ Programming Language is a concise book.

Christopher Alexander's A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction is a candidate. It is cited as the inspiration of the Design Patterns book. But it is actually a very good (though long-winded) book.

His book A Timeless Way of Building is also good. Nothing thats really applicable to software though, but very insightful.

I have been reading a Timeless Way of Building. I am enjoying it -- is it worth reading the next book?

Tangentially, I recently made a list of books I think every programmer would enjoy reading: http://williamedwardscoder.tumblr.com/post/19794076450/a-few...

Aside, in every programming job I've been in, there's been other programmers keen to lend me Terry Pratchett books.

I've read a good chunk of both the Dragon Book and CLRS. I can't even understand why someone would recommend the dragon book as a 'must read', if I was going to write a compiler again (outside of class) I would definitely search for a good alternative. It's good on theory, but I've never found it particularly enlightening. If you're not actually writing a compiler I can't think of any reason to read it.

The CLRS on the other hand I really recommend anyone interested in CS and programming purchase a copy of. It's not a book you read cover to cover, but get the first 1/3 well understood, and then when you have some downtime pick it up, scan the chapters, pick one the piques your interest and either learn a new algorithm or refresh on something you're getting fuzzy on.

To be fair I haven't spent any serious time with other recommended algorithms books, which I should. But every few months I find my self reading the CLRS and enjoying it.

Dragon book is something a compiler writer should read, but after he's gone through a compiler construction book first (I like Wirth's book; short and to the point). Definitely not an intro to compilation, it would scare me away.

The Dragon book is not necessarily for people wanting to write compilers. That's an easy task for simple languages that gets even simpler by the usage of modern tools. Any developer that understands regular expressions and remembers some material from their Theory of Computation classes should have no problem building compilers.

The Dragon Book is however for people wanting to build parser combinators.

I mistakenly upvoted you instead of downvoting you.

You can't parse context-free or context-sensitive languages with regular expressions. You probably mean that there are lexer generators that generate a lexer based on a regular expression specification, but you still need to provide a grammar to the parser generator if you don't write a parser by hand.

To be able to produce a grammar specification for the parser generator you need to understand formal grammars. To be able to produce an useful specification you really need to understand the general parsing algorithms and how the specific parser generator works.

All of this is vastly more involved than just understanding regular expressions. And this is just parsing, arguably the easiest part, not generating code or interpreting or all the other steps compilers might do.

Yacc is at least 33 years old, newer tools are better in some ways, for example Bison can generate a GLR parser, but they are just as easy (or hard) to use and require the same knowledge.

> The Dragon Book is however for people wanting to build parser combinators.

You probably meant parser generator, parser combinator is a different thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parser_combinator

     You can't parse context-free or context-sensitive 
     languages with regular expressions

I didn't say that.

Also, to add to your point, current regexp libraries have capabilities that far exceed the concept in the formal languages theory. Features like capturing buffers or look-ahead assertions cannot describe a finite-state machine.

Also, Perl has had support for recursive regular expressions. Perl 5.10 even has support for recursive capture buffers.

     To be able to produce a grammar specification
     for the parser generator you need to understand 
     formal grammars

IMHO, that's the same as saying that in order to be a programmer then you need to know lots of math, which is in general bullshit. Even before the formal theory was available, people have been building compilers the good-old fashioned way - by writing top-down LL(k) parsers, without necessarily having a name for this technique.

But I also said that one should remember some basics from its theory of computation class, as it is helpful to know what a pushdown automaton is and the difference between it and a finite-state machine.

     All of this is vastly more involved than just
     anding regular expressions

It involves functions calling each other, sometimes recursively and loops and switches and remembering where you are in the text and doing repetitive transformations. It's as if you're doing real programming.

     You probably meant parser generator, parser combinator 
     is a different thing

No, I meant parser combinator.

I wonder how often you looked at a compiler's implementation to make such claims. First of all, there are many parts in a compiler that are not fully automated (lexer and parser generators making frontend development easier; basically BURS systems for backend automation (w.r.t. instruction selection), but then in optimization you have to deal with instruction scheduling, register allocation, etc.)

Then, I also think that your comment about people having written top-down recursive descent parsers for a long time without concrete historical reference is suprising, particularly when we all know of a prominent example (C) that you cannot parse with LL techniques (I rememeber a professor at university remarking on K&R probably not knowing about LL -- though I can't attest to this being true or not.)

I can also not figure out how you connect the Dragon book to Parser combinators. Having implemented parsers in both, monadic and combinatoric style (both of which btw. are a mess to debug) the best connection I can think of is translating formal grammar descriptions using parser combinators. Is this what you are referring to?

I like your characterization of compilers being just calling functions and loops plus switches and pointers to text. While we know about Church-Turing thesis, I am positive that the intricacies of database system implementation, operating system implementation and programming langauge implementation deserves distinction (which is supported by many of them having dedicated special interest groups.)

      I also think that your comment about people having 
      written top-down recursive descent parsers for a long 
      time without concrete historical reference is 
      suprising

I do not have concrete knowledge or evidence about it, it was a statement based on intuition alone, sorry about that.

The reason why I said it is because the first parser I ever wrote (something like 10 years ago), was a top-down LL(k) parser and I had absolutely no idea about what I was doing, but in the end it worked. Many programmers are choosing LL(k) implementations for their manually-built parsers because they are so easy to reason about and build manually.

I was under the impression that C can be described as LL(k). C++ definitely can't be.

About a compiler's implementation, I realize that it can get really messy, especially for statically typed languages and especially if you want to add type inference to it. Also agree on optimization. But the thing is, most people don't need to build turing-complete languages or need efficient translations to the target representation, they just need to parse DSLs or network protocols (hence my original comment).

Well, in my compilers course, we used the Dragon Book and had programming assignments in Lex and Yacc/Bison (which the latest edition does cover). TBH, I found those assignments quite fun to solve. Of course, that isn't writing a compiler from absolutely nothing, but it did make us more confident of the stuff we were learning.

Don't forget to add Goedel, Escher, Bach to the list of books most recommend, claim to have read, but haven't.

I'd be tempted to add Numerical Recipes in C to the second list. I've often referred to it for various algorithmic problems thinking that it will be helpful and practical (examples in C!), but I'm usually disappointed. Most of it is targeted at very technical, math heavy problems. But hey, should my job require use of Toeplitz Matrices, NR is just an arm's length away!

This is NOT at all a knock on the book, since the title makes quite clear what it's about. But for whatever reason this one seems to end up on various "good to have on your shelf" lists when it probably isn't.

I think Numerical Recipes is more of a reference.

Eg. my professor owned NRC, and he did use it, especially the CD, to take algorithms as a plug-and-play starting point when doing some numerical analysis. Of course, you can also get similar algorithms off the web, but some professors are old-school like that.

that book contains many errors and should not be relied upon http://www.cs.umd.edu/~oleary/c660/survival.html (look under dubious software)

From the article:

The problem with Design Patterns is that much of the information in the book (but not enough of it) is accessible elsewhere.

Maybe now, but I don't think this was true when the GoF book was published in 1995. My recollection is that there weren't a lot of books on software architecture (code- or system-level) back then because it wasn't so much of an issue. Most of us were writing monolithic C code or trying to get reuse of C++ libraries. The whole "architecture astronaut" thing hadn't got started.

That is was so ahead of its time is what makes it an important book.

You're absolutely right. Maybe that should have been "The problem with design patterns..." That is, it's not a problem with the book itself at all, but a problem with the message in the book being disseminated and often watered down.

Mythical Man Month and Silver Bullet essay ought to be mandatory. K&R as well, and Stroustrup (both C++PL and Design and Evolution of C++).

Programmers don't stand on each others' shoulders, but each others' feet.

Anyone who's working in industry (particularly if you're in any danger of being promoted to project lead) should read Brooks. The others are more language-dependent, but the lessons in MMM and NSB are applicable to everyone in software industry or any kind of project management.

Anytime I'm a little unclear or need a refresher on a sorting algo or how a data structure is implemented, I've found CLRS to be an extremely useful resource. It has been a life saver in my algorithms class (undergrad)...I think it works best as a supplement to lectures and exercises you would encounter in any data structs/algo class. It's especially useful for exam practice. I would guess that the exercises would also be really helpful practice for job interviews..But its not the kind of book I'd sit and read cover to cover.

I'm surprised that GEB isn't on the list of 'recommended but not read'

I'm an avid reader but was disappointed with the dragon book. I felt like once finished, I still couldn't write a simple interpreter! I guess it's a good reference.. or maybe a second book, but that's definitely not the best book to get started and learn compilers.

I did actually read The C++ Programming Language when I was in high school.. at that time I thought it was a very important book. Now, with the insight, how dull it was and useless!

I can honestly say that I have not read any single one of those books. My first C++ book was C++ for dummies, after that everything I learned was from online tutorials, from actually doing it, and then by the time I reached college my knowledge was already above what the instructors were teaching in class.

I have quite a few programming books, mostly cookbooks though, that show little examples/snippets and or O'Reilly reference books that I used to purchase when starting a new language to get an idea for the syntax. The best book that I have ever bought and read was "Advanced UNIX Programming" by Marc J. Rochkind. It helped me get a much firmer grasp on Unix programming and along with it C which I was lacking at the time.

I've got a copy of the Dragon book sitting on my desk, it is waiting to be read, waiting to be devoured and played with, but so far I just haven't had the time.

One book I would like to read and wrap my head around is the Gang of Four book, it seems like it is important to know the various different design patterns, but so far I don't feel like I have missed out and can recognise good design practices based solely on how they feel while I am writing them.

To me, a lot of this divide is between books I read cover to cover and books I consider references or pick up for very specific sections (like "Algorithms on Strings, Trees and Sequences").

CLRS, TAOCP, and Gang of Four are all books I haven't read in their entirety, but have been indispensable for certain topics. I still recommend them to people all the time, and feel perfectly justified doing so.

Agreed. But, a lot of the recommendations are written not with the tone you mention, but the tone of, "yeah, I worked my way through the whole book."

In fact, very few do more than read selective chapters (which is OK).

Some of the people responding to this thread might consider that they are proving "Bill the Lizard" correct :).

I laughed when I read the article because I have checked out every one of the books he says programmers claim to have read (TAOCP, etc) from my company's internal library, and though I skimmed interesting parts (Go4, especially), I hardly read them.

Introduction to Algorithms (CLRS) This book may have the most misleading title of any programming book ever published. It's widely used at many universities, usually in graduate level algorithms courses. As a result, any programmer who has taken an algorithms course at university probably owns a copy of CLRS. However, unless you have at least a Masters degree in Computer Science (and in Algorithms specifically), I doubt you've read more than a few selected chapters from Introduction to Algorithms.

Really? Because I still have mine from undergrad, and when I was using it to prep for a Google on-site, I was surprised that I had forgotten how far into it we had gone (there are dog ears back to chapter 36). Of course, that class was over ten years ago, and I (unfortunately) don't get to use it much these days, being that I mostly deal with RF and E&M.

At the risk getting flamed to a crisp for even suggesting the language or the title, I'd recommend PHP for Dummies and the companion book, everyday projects in PHP, as a starting point for a completely new web developer.

It's highly digestible, covers many basic concepts (HTML, loops, control flow, variables, sessions, databases, oop), and has a number of good projects to walk through. While I've moved on to significantly more advanced topics (Python, functional programming), it took me a long way and laid a pretty solid foundation for the future. They actually went relatively deep in the details of how a website works.

BTW - I'd avoid ASP.Net for dummies. Relatively little code contained in that one...

My first programming book was K.N. King's "C Programming, a Modern Approach" That remains one of the few programming-related books I own that has endured some wear.

I actually have read the GoF book, but I'm not sure that I'd recommend it to anyone.

I have read none of the books on the first list, but 4 of 5 on the second, is it something wrong with me?

To be more serious. All the books on the second list comes from people that were signinficant contributors to the field the book is about. That does not automatically make them good writers. All of the books on the second list is on the dryer end of the scale. I would recommend Appel's compiler book instead of the Dragon Book for example, even if it is less comprehensive. The Dragon book is written in an extremly confusing way (some oldtime compiler people have even described it as confused, esp in first edition).

Despite the author mentioning it, I could not get through Effective Java. It was well written and informative, but I got the feeling that it mostly taught me about deficiencies of JVM or the language design.

I've always found that knowing the deficiencies of a language is the best way to know the language. Anything that works well should be pretty intuitive and comfortable, but knowing exactly where the trouble spots of a language are let you be aware when you approach them, and know how to handle them.

CLRS is a great book, I have read it, and other people should read it too. The first time I tried to read it I couldn't do the necessary math, so it took a bit more than two times through to grasp it.

TAOCP I generally recommend as a reference because I can only speak to its usefulness when used as a reference.

Edit: By "Other people" I do not mean "Other people who are doing graduate work" or "Other people who are in a senior level algorithms course." Really anyone who plans to do a significant amount of programming should read CLRS, even if he or she is still in high school.

This is so true and I'm completely guilty of it. I have a signed copy of The C++ Programming Language and often find myself recommending it when in fact, I've only read bits and pieces myself.

My problem with that book is the italic, thin, proportional font all the code is in (I have he hard cover). It hurts my eyes and I keep missing punctuation.

I started nodding my head when I read your post. That must say something...

I try as hard as I can to turn even aspiring compiler writers away from the Dragon Book. You don't need a the theoretic underpinnings of 5 types of parsing to write a compiler, and I doubt anyone could use the Dragon Book to actually write a compiler.

I give an emphatic thumbs up to "Engineering a Compiler" (Cooper/Torczon) and also to the Appel books. They are fantastic, readable and digestable, and actually help get a compiler written.

I can't believe "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" isn't on that list anywhere.

See there: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3754747

I read most from the second list, but only two from the first... hipster coder.

I am an undergrad and have read most of CLRS and the dragon book.

And I will certainly read TAOCP once I have the money to reasonably justify spending it on the set.

I wouldn't really want to ever read a book on design patterns.

I bet you $50 you'll never finish reading even book 1 of TAOCP.

I don't understand this comment. Why do you care?

I'm just saying, those books are impossible to read cover to cover.

I've read volumes 1-3 cover to cover (I even picked up a cheque along the way).

I wasn't reading for maximal knowledge retention (e.g. I would rarely do any of the exercises, though I would read them all and think about how I would solve them), but now I have a pretty good idea of what is in there and what isn't.

I think that heavily depends on one's prior education.

I found them a fairly easy read. It's just applied number theory :-)

They're not meant to be read cover to cover, the same way you would not read a dictionary cover to cover. Knuth himself even says so in book 1.

I have read volume 1 cover to cover, worked through the "easy" exercises in the 1st half of the book. But the MIX simulator excursions were frustrating for me, as it seemed to be an incomplete project, and based entirely on Knuth's imagination, and not a real, working platform (at least at the time I read it).

I do not own volume 2, but poked around a bit in the sections with random number algorithms, as they have always fascinated me, since the time I wrote my own crude ones, in Pascal, back in the 1980s ;(

All the volumes are a good read - just skip the maths and assembly sections in the first book. The rest of the work is understandable/readable without them.

Skip the maths?! I bought volume 4 because the math was interesting. I just skip all of the coding bits. Reading Knuth, for me, is similar to reading Martin Gardner's books.

I've read quite a few of these, the problem with most of the ones listed is simple - they are technical or seemingly so simple (K&R) that reading them all the way through is a test of attention.

> I often hear TAOCP described as the series of programming books "that every programmer should read." I think this is simply untrue. Before I'm burned at the stake for blasphemy, allow me to explain.

Really? I find that articles, blog posts and comments like to point out that this is something people actually say. I think that is untrue. It feels like one of the standard pseudo-oppositions that people take in order to write a piece - as if it was controversial - even if it isn't.

Obviously it's placed on greatest CS books list, or something that is valuable to have as a reference, but that's not the same thing as it being recommended reading for programmers.

Among the books "programmers have read", I have read K&R, Programming Pearls and bits and pieces of Effective Java and C++. I thoroughly enjoyed these books.

The other books on the "have read" list are on my "don't bother reading" list. Code Complete, Pragmatic Programmer, Mythical Man Month et al aren't my kind of books. As far as design patterns go, I believe if you code in Python/Ruby/Perl etc, books covering them in Java/C++ are needlessly verbose and boring. I recommend Alex Martelli's talks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vJJlVBVTFg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Sbzmz1Nxvo

And this book which covers design patterns using Ruby.

http://www.amazon.com/Design-Patterns-Ruby-Russ-Olsen/dp/032...

Both approaches actually show you practical examples of design patterns in the standard library or real world problems, and shuns patterns which aren't applicable to the language or are too trivial. These talks aren't the end-all, but they will give you a good overall knowledge, and will make further exploration easy.

And from the "haven't read" list, CLRS is a good book and isn't as dense as it is generally taken to be. It does have sections on proofs, but you can skip it and jump directly to the data structure/algorithm. The pseudo code used in the book is extremely clear, and will convert to simple python in most of the cases. Use it as a reference, or read first few hundred pages. If the book isn't for you, you will know it after you have read the first 100 pages.

Another book I recommend is Sedgewick's book on Algorithms. I have read the C version. It mostly covers basic data structures and some accompanying algorithms. The code is succinct(sometimes needlessly so) and more importantly, it works. It doesn't sit well with everyone, but I liked it - it helps me see the whole picture without bombarding me with a lot of code.

Skiena is another obvious favorite.

Dragon book is decent, but you need guidance and discipline to make anything out of it. Consult your peers or teachers while using the book, or use another book.

I haven't read TAOCP and it's low on my list for now. I have read bits and pieces and I didn't find it as fascinating as I had hoped. It's dense and extensive, and can be used as reference.

"Effective C++" will be a better alternative to "The C++ programming language". But I must say, when I first read "The C++ programming language", I found it fascinating - lengthy, but fascinating. That would be mainly because I was beginning programming when I first read it.

no recommendation for 'c interfaces and implementation', surprised...

Huh, seems I'm a strange guy. From the "everybody has read" list I just read 2 books (pragmatic programmer and the 2nd edition) but from the list "everybody recommends but no one actually reads" I only haven't read introduction to algorithms.

I read programming pearls about halfway until I discovered that a several of the samples were using gets() and could be trivially exploited for buffer overflows.

Calling programs like that "pearls" just seemed too wrong to me to go on.

As to my understanding, Programming Pearls focused lies between the range of elegant code and algorithms/problem solving as opposed to secured coding practice in the C programming language.

Still, someone like Knuth will argue that correctness should not be sacrificed for elegance.

Feel free to crucify John Bentley.

I know I'll learn more out of the book if I don't care of the small nitpicks like "gets()".

IIRC the book actually has a section where the author explains why he uses gets(), short variable names, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com