Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #161395 > unrolled thread

Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

Started by	Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com>
First post	2016-03-23 02:31 -0700
Last post	2016-03-30 14:56 +0100
Articles	20 on this page of 401 — 44 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Page 1 of 21 [1] 2 3 … 21 Next page →

#161395 — Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

From	Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-23 02:31 -0700
Subject	Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?
Message-ID	<28e136de-6c61-4ba9-ba8f-e7c2b0bceff6@googlegroups.com>

There's One In Particular That Covers Different Algorithms

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#161400

From	"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net>
Date	2016-03-23 08:17 -0600
Message-ID	<dlfjbeFleicU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161395

"Neo Fortune" wrote:

> There's One In Particular That Covers Different Algorithms

_The Art of Computer Programming_ by Donald Knuth is kind of the ultimate 
book for serious programmers.  The way your post is phrased, I think you 
might be a beginner and so the book might be a bit much. I suggest you spend 
a few hours poking around in Wikipedia and try to focus in a bit more on 
what you want to do and then posting a revised question.

If you truly are a beginner, a better starting point might be to learn one 
of the programming languages. there are a hundred or so.  And a book on 
algorithms requires an ability to understand a language.

The book mentioned is a multi-volume work in process, the first three 
volumes have been around for several years..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161407

From	Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date	2016-03-23 15:16 +0100
Message-ID	<73lasc-4r.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to	#161400

In article <dlfjbeFleicU1@mid.individual.net>,
Osmium <r124c4u102@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Neo Fortune" wrote:
>
>> There's One In Particular That Covers Different Algorithms
>
>_The Art of Computer Programming_ by Donald Knuth is kind of the ultimate 
>book for serious programmers.  The way your post is phrased, I think you 
>might be a beginner and so the book might be a bit much. I suggest you spend 
>a few hours poking around in Wikipedia and try to focus in a bit more on 
>what you want to do and then posting a revised question.
>
>If you truly are a beginner, a better starting point might be to learn one 
>of the programming languages. there are a hundred or so.  And a book on 
>algorithms requires an ability to understand a language.
>
>The book mentioned is a multi-volume work in process, the first three 
>volumes have been around for several years.. 

These volumes are a tall order for a beginner. 

The variuos "software tools" books cover partly the same territory, 
but are way better as instructional tools. 

Also, as the previus poster said, go learn a few languages. 

I had the most benefit from Pascal, just because of its strictness
and clarity (which makes it kind od counterproductive for real projects). 

Also I had a lot of benefit from smalltalk, which made me truly
understand object orientation (something that c++ was far removed from).

Stay away from c++, but embrace C for the "high level assembler"
functions. But don't make it your first language.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161564

From	Neo Fortune <serenity3043@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-29 01:45 -0700
Message-ID	<c0b315d1-2393-46f2-b27f-962a33536053@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#161400

On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 1:17:36 PM UTC, Osmium wrote:
> "Neo Fortune" wrote:
> 
> > There's One In Particular That Covers Different Algorithms
> 
> _The Art of Computer Programming_ by Donald Knuth is kind of the ultimate 
> book for serious programmers.  The way your post is phrased, I think you 
> might be a beginner and so the book might be a bit much. I suggest you spend 
> a few hours poking around in Wikipedia and try to focus in a bit more on 
> what you want to do and then posting a revised question.
> 
> If you truly are a beginner, a better starting point might be to learn one 
> of the programming languages. there are a hundred or so.  And a book on 
> algorithms requires an ability to understand a language.
> 
> The book mentioned is a multi-volume work in process, the first three 
> volumes have been around for several years..

Thanks...

The Art of Computer Programming By Donald Knuth Sounds The Ticket

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161565

From	Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date	2016-03-29 10:03 +0000
Message-ID	<dlv28bFflomU9@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161564

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 01:45:09 -0700, Neo Fortune wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 1:17:36 PM UTC, Osmium wrote:
>> "Neo Fortune" wrote:
>> 
>> > There's One In Particular That Covers Different Algorithms
>> 
>> _The Art of Computer Programming_ by Donald Knuth is kind of the
>> ultimate book for serious programmers.  The way your post is phrased, I
>> think you might be a beginner and so the book might be a bit much. I
>> suggest you spend a few hours poking around in Wikipedia and try to
>> focus in a bit more on what you want to do and then posting a revised
>> question.
>> 
>> If you truly are a beginner, a better starting point might be to learn
>> one of the programming languages. there are a hundred or so.  And a
>> book on algorithms requires an ability to understand a language.
>> 
>> The book mentioned is a multi-volume work in process, the first three
>> volumes have been around for several years..
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> The Art of Computer Programming By Donald Knuth Sounds The Ticket

Frankly, it's a bit advanced and mathematical for a beginner. You'd be 
better off picking a language (perhaps Python) and then getting a 
beginners or Dummies book on it.




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161566

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2016-03-29 11:50 +0100
Message-ID	<20160329115042.8ddde578e74dae8ef7a36a11@eircom.net>
In reply to	#161565

On 29 Mar 2016 10:03:55 GMT
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 01:45:09 -0700, Neo Fortune wrote:
> 
> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 1:17:36 PM UTC, Osmium wrote:
> >> "Neo Fortune" wrote:
> >> 
> >> > There's One In Particular That Covers Different Algorithms
> >> 
> >> _The Art of Computer Programming_ by Donald Knuth is kind of the
> >> ultimate book for serious programmers.  The way your post is phrased, I
> >> think you might be a beginner and so the book might be a bit much. I
> >> suggest you spend a few hours poking around in Wikipedia and try to
> >> focus in a bit more on what you want to do and then posting a revised
> >> question.
> >> 
> >> If you truly are a beginner, a better starting point might be to learn
> >> one of the programming languages. there are a hundred or so.  And a
> >> book on algorithms requires an ability to understand a language.
> >> 
> >> The book mentioned is a multi-volume work in process, the first three
> >> volumes have been around for several years..
> > 
> > Thanks...
> > 
> > The Art of Computer Programming By Donald Knuth Sounds The Ticket
> 
> Frankly, it's a bit advanced and mathematical for a beginner. You'd be 
> better off picking a language (perhaps Python) and then getting a 
> beginners or Dummies book on it.

	I'd say that depends on whether you want to learn to write programs
or to understand algorithms. Knuth is an amazingly comprehensive academic
study and catalogue of algorithms, a truly wonderful reference. It is
indeed not a tutorial for beginners (or indeed anybody).

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161567

From	Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date	2016-03-29 12:25 +0000
Message-ID	<dlvailFflomU11@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161566

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:50:42 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2016 10:03:55 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 01:45:09 -0700, Neo Fortune wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 1:17:36 PM UTC, Osmium wrote:
>> >> "Neo Fortune" wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > There's One In Particular That Covers Different Algorithms
>> >> 
>> >> _The Art of Computer Programming_ by Donald Knuth is kind of the
>> >> ultimate book for serious programmers.  The way your post is
>> >> phrased, I think you might be a beginner and so the book might be a
>> >> bit much. I suggest you spend a few hours poking around in Wikipedia
>> >> and try to focus in a bit more on what you want to do and then
>> >> posting a revised question.
>> >> 
>> >> If you truly are a beginner, a better starting point might be to
>> >> learn one of the programming languages. there are a hundred or so. 
>> >> And a book on algorithms requires an ability to understand a
>> >> language.
>> >> 
>> >> The book mentioned is a multi-volume work in process, the first
>> >> three volumes have been around for several years..
>> > 
>> > Thanks...
>> > 
>> > The Art of Computer Programming By Donald Knuth Sounds The Ticket
>> 
>> Frankly, it's a bit advanced and mathematical for a beginner. You'd be
>> better off picking a language (perhaps Python) and then getting a
>> beginners or Dummies book on it.
> 
> 	I'd say that depends on whether you want to learn to write 
programs
> or to understand algorithms. Knuth is an amazingly comprehensive
> academic study and catalogue of algorithms, a truly wonderful reference.
> It is indeed not a tutorial for beginners (or indeed anybody).

I too thought the OP sounded like a beginner.

I find Knuth useful but I've been a computer scientist for nearly 40 
years. It's right here on the shelf!




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161568

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2016-03-29 13:42 +0100
Message-ID	<20160329134207.4d7d77389889326e422c0e55@eircom.net>
In reply to	#161567

On 29 Mar 2016 12:25:57 GMT
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:50:42 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> 
> > 	I'd say that depends on whether you want to learn to write 
> programs
> > or to understand algorithms. Knuth is an amazingly comprehensive
> > academic study and catalogue of algorithms, a truly wonderful reference.
> > It is indeed not a tutorial for beginners (or indeed anybody).
> 
> I too thought the OP sounded like a beginner.

	I rather suspect so, but I'd hate to discourage anyone from
studying algorithms - far too few ever do.

> I find Knuth useful but I've been a computer scientist for nearly 40 
> years. It's right here on the shelf!

	The real hope is that the OP will find it fascinating and go on to
create algorithms of wonderous subtlety.

	The one problem with Knuth is that you've probably had it on your
shelf for those nearly 40 years - there have been a few new twists on
algorithms and data structures in the meantime, and rather less need for
sort/merge that won't fit in online storage than there used to be.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161569

From	Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date	2016-03-29 13:09 +0000
Message-ID	<dlvd57FflomU12@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161568

On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:42:07 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

> On 29 Mar 2016 12:25:57 GMT Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:50:42 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> 
>> > 	I'd say that depends on whether you want to learn to write
>> programs
>> > or to understand algorithms. Knuth is an amazingly comprehensive
>> > academic study and catalogue of algorithms, a truly wonderful
>> > reference.
>> > It is indeed not a tutorial for beginners (or indeed anybody).
>> 
>> I too thought the OP sounded like a beginner.
> 
> 	I rather suspect so, but I'd hate to discourage anyone from
> studying algorithms - far too few ever do.
> 
>> I find Knuth useful but I've been a computer scientist for nearly 40
>> years. It's right here on the shelf!
> 
> 	The real hope is that the OP will find it fascinating and go on to
> create algorithms of wonderous subtlety.
> 
> 	The one problem with Knuth is that you've probably had it on your
> shelf for those nearly 40 years - there have been a few new twists on
> algorithms and data structures in the meantime, and rather less need for
> sort/merge that won't fit in online storage than there used to be.

Oh yes, there is stuff in there that I'll never use. I have the 'updated' 
edition now but I suspect there were not a lot of changes. Never mind, I 
didn't pay for either set!




-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161576

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2016-03-29 14:41 +0100
Message-ID	<20160329144140.bbff8c4f2433491c753a9bfd@eircom.net>
In reply to	#161569

On 29 Mar 2016 13:09:59 GMT
Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> wrote:

> Oh yes, there is stuff in there that I'll never use. I have the 'updated' 
> edition now but I suspect there were not a lot of changes. Never mind, I 
> didn't pay for either set!

	Jammy git!

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161577

From	sigma.research@gmail.com
Date	2016-03-29 08:10 -0700
Message-ID	<fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#161576

Many might disagree, but APL is an
excellent language to start with. It was
the first language i sank my teeth into.
Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
There are a few free versions out there.

-- William Gallant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161612

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-29 20:58 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.3164eeaf853f506e98a054@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#161577

In article <fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>, 
sigma.research@gmail.com says...
> 
> Many might disagree, but APL is an
> excellent language to start with. It was
> the first language i sank my teeth into.
> Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
> There are a few free versions out there.

Yep.  Trouble is that if you learn to think in APL then other languages 
become frustrating.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161617

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2016-03-30 05:13 +0000
Message-ID	<ndfnam014op@news4.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#161612

On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>, 
> sigma.research@gmail.com says...
> 
>> Many might disagree, but APL is an
>> excellent language to start with. It was
>> the first language i sank my teeth into.
>> Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
>> There are a few free versions out there.
>
> Yep.  Trouble is that if you learn to think in APL then other languages 
> become frustrating.

Once I learned to think in assembly language, any high-level language
became frustrating.

Now I think in C - and high-level languages are still frustrating.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161622

From	Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx>
Date	2016-03-30 08:34 +0000
Message-ID	<dm1hbvFflomU14@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#161617

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 05:13:58 +0000, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>,
>> sigma.research@gmail.com says...
>> 
>>> Many might disagree, but APL is an excellent language to start with.
>>> It was the first language i sank my teeth into.
>>> Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
>>> There are a few free versions out there.
>>
>> Yep.  Trouble is that if you learn to think in APL then other languages
>> become frustrating.
> 
> Once I learned to think in assembly language, any high-level language
> became frustrating.
> 
> Now I think in C - and high-level languages are still frustrating.

Same here. My first program was in Manchester Autocode (years later, my 
supervisor was one of its developers, although I didn't know that at the 
time).

I then learned BASIC in my university leectronics degree first year, and 
immediately taught myself the mainframe assembler. Then FORTRAN, more 
assembler, then many years using BCPL (which makes C look safe and high 
level).

-- 
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
 http://www.mirrorservice.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161627

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-03-30 07:01 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.31657c0bdd5a7d3398a055@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#161617

In article <ndfnam014op@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
says...
> 
> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>, 
> > sigma.research@gmail.com says...
> > 
> >> Many might disagree, but APL is an
> >> excellent language to start with. It was
> >> the first language i sank my teeth into.
> >> Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
> >> There are a few free versions out there.
> >
> > Yep.  Trouble is that if you learn to think in APL then other languages 
> > become frustrating.
> 
> Once I learned to think in assembly language, any high-level language
> became frustrating.
> 
> Now I think in C - and high-level languages are still frustrating.

Different kind of frustrating.

In APL if you are using a loop you are probably doing something wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161654

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2016-03-30 16:32 +0000
Message-ID	<ndgv2u048b@news6.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#161627

On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <ndfnam014op@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
> says...
> 
>> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>, 
>>> sigma.research@gmail.com says...
>>> 
>>>> Many might disagree, but APL is an
>>>> excellent language to start with. It was
>>>> the first language i sank my teeth into.
>>>> Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
>>>> There are a few free versions out there.
>>>
>>> Yep.  Trouble is that if you learn to think in APL then other languages 
>>> become frustrating.
>> 
>> Once I learned to think in assembly language, any high-level language
>> became frustrating.
>> 
>> Now I think in C - and high-level languages are still frustrating.
>
> Different kind of frustrating.
>
> In APL if you are using a loop you are probably doing something wrong.

Not in my kind of applications.  Are you saying that APL isn't suited to
sequential processing of records in a file?  (Database gurus notwithstanding,
sequential processing is still the most efficient way to scan a million-record
file.)

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161803

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-01 21:12 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.3168e6844cf909cc98a059@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#161654

In article <ndgv2u048b@news6.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
says...
> 
> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <ndfnam014op@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
> > says...
> > 
> >> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article <fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>, 
> >>> sigma.research@gmail.com says...
> >>> 
> >>>> Many might disagree, but APL is an
> >>>> excellent language to start with. It was
> >>>> the first language i sank my teeth into.
> >>>> Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
> >>>> There are a few free versions out there.
> >>>
> >>> Yep.  Trouble is that if you learn to think in APL then other languages 
> >>> become frustrating.
> >> 
> >> Once I learned to think in assembly language, any high-level language
> >> became frustrating.
> >> 
> >> Now I think in C - and high-level languages are still frustrating.
> >
> > Different kind of frustrating.
> >
> > In APL if you are using a loop you are probably doing something wrong.
> 
> Not in my kind of applications.  Are you saying that APL isn't suited to
> sequential processing of records in a file?  (Database gurus notwithstanding,
> sequential processing is still the most efficient way to scan a million-record
> file.)

In APL you don't "scan records", you suck them all into an array and 
then use the array operations.

Arrays contining a million records are well within the capabilities of 
any modern APL system.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161806

From	Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date	2016-04-02 01:29 +0000
Message-ID	<ndn79701ej@news6.newsguy.com>
In reply to	#161803

On 2016-04-02, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <ndgv2u048b@news6.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
> says...
>> 
>> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> In article <ndfnam014op@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
>>> says...
>>> 
>>>> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> In article <fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>, 
>>>>> sigma.research@gmail.com says...
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Many might disagree, but APL is an
>>>>>> excellent language to start with. It was
>>>>>> the first language i sank my teeth into.
>>>>>> Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
>>>>>> There are a few free versions out there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.  Trouble is that if you learn to think in APL then other languages 
>>>>> become frustrating.
>>>> 
>>>> Once I learned to think in assembly language, any high-level language
>>>> became frustrating.
>>>> 
>>>> Now I think in C - and high-level languages are still frustrating.
>>>
>>> Different kind of frustrating.
>>>
>>> In APL if you are using a loop you are probably doing something wrong.
>> 
>> Not in my kind of applications.  Are you saying that APL isn't
>> suited to sequential processing of records in a file?  (Database
>> gurus notwithstanding, sequential processing is still the most
>> efficient way to scan a million-record file.)
>
> In APL you don't "scan records", you suck them all into an array and 
> then use the array operations.
>
> Arrays contining a million records are well within the capabilities of 
> any modern APL system.

Perhaps this is one of those cases where knowing how things work gets in
the way.  I have images of madly thrashing swap disks, and the inability
to process the first record until you've read the millionth.  I presume
that APL is somehow _very_ different.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161820

From	"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com>
Date	2016-04-02 08:19 -0400
Message-ID	<MPG.316982e8b4dc2ec298a05b@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to	#161806

In article <ndn79701ej@news6.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
says...
> 
> On 2016-04-02, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <ndgv2u048b@news6.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
> > says...
> >> 
> >> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> In article <ndfnam014op@news4.newsguy.com>, cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid 
> >>> says...
> >>> 
> >>>> On 2016-03-30, J. Clarke <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>> In article <fd704521-012a-4bdc-acec-c83269e46c4e@googlegroups.com>, 
> >>>>> sigma.research@gmail.com says...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>> Many might disagree, but APL is an
> >>>>>> excellent language to start with. It was
> >>>>>> the first language i sank my teeth into.
> >>>>>> Easy to learn, but a lifetime to master.
> >>>>>> There are a few free versions out there.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yep.  Trouble is that if you learn to think in APL then other languages 
> >>>>> become frustrating.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Once I learned to think in assembly language, any high-level language
> >>>> became frustrating.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Now I think in C - and high-level languages are still frustrating.
> >>>
> >>> Different kind of frustrating.
> >>>
> >>> In APL if you are using a loop you are probably doing something wrong.
> >> 
> >> Not in my kind of applications.  Are you saying that APL isn't
> >> suited to sequential processing of records in a file?  (Database
> >> gurus notwithstanding, sequential processing is still the most
> >> efficient way to scan a million-record file.)
> >
> > In APL you don't "scan records", you suck them all into an array and 
> > then use the array operations.
> >
> > Arrays contining a million records are well within the capabilities of 
> > any modern APL system.
> 
> Perhaps this is one of those cases where knowing how things work gets in
> the way.  I have images of madly thrashing swap disks, and the inability
> to process the first record until you've read the millionth.  I presume
> that APL is somehow _very_ different.

If you're dealing with databases too large to comfortably fit in RAM 
then APL is really the wrong tool to be using.  It can do the "read a 
record, process a record, write a record" kind of processing but to do 
that you're pretty much turning into imitation Fortran, and it's not 
really a very good imitation Fortran.

We use it as part of our test strategy--typically we set up APL to 
generate datasets containing inputs and expected outputs, then feed 
those inputs into the C or Fortran production code and determine whether 
the outputs match.  If not then we figure out why and what to do about 
it.

Anyway, this is kind of apart from the point I was making.  In APL you 
have numerous condise operators that do complicated things to every 
element of an array, even a multidimensional array.  Mostly procedures 
that are handled by looping in other languages are handled by array 
operations in APL, and there's a temptation for inexperienced APL 
programmers to write loops that replicate built in functionality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161824

From	Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date	2016-04-02 14:34 +0100
Message-ID	<20160402143451.b1e52acd05c8f72f4f7c074e@eircom.net>
In reply to	#161820

On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 08:19:40 -0400
"J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

> Anyway, this is kind of apart from the point I was making.  In APL you 
> have numerous condise operators that do complicated things to every 
> element of an array, even a multidimensional array.  Mostly procedures 
> that are handled by looping in other languages are handled by array 
> operations in APL, and there's a temptation for inexperienced APL 
> programmers to write loops that replicate built in functionality.

	I recall being taught about APL but not learning the language, the
example that started the lesson was a five character program to produce
primes up to a given number. IIRC it worked by generating a one dimensional
array with the values 1 to n in it, transposing and multiplying to get the
2D array of the products and finally filtering the original array to remove
everything present in the 2D array. The takeaway seemed to be that APL
allowed you to write amazingly compact programs and was really expressive
in array manipulation - but efficiency was going to require some attention
to achieve.

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 21 [1] 2 3 … 21 Next page →

csiph-web

Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

Contents

#161395 — Which Books Can You Recommend For Learning Computer Programming?

#161400

#161407

#161564

#161565

#161566

#161567

#161568

#161569

#161576

#161577

#161612

#161617

#161622

#161627

#161654

#161803

#161806

#161820

#161824