编程与软件工程billthelizard.com
程序员并不真正读的那些书（2008）
Books Programmers Don't Really Read (2008)
2010 — 2016，它一次次回到首页
黑点是上首页（≥ 50 分）的那次投稿，空心点是没冲上去的投稿，点越大分数越高。
导读
这篇 2008 年的博客文章以清单形式调侃那些被程序员广泛推荐、却未必真被读完的计算机经典，并讨论这些书在技术书单文化中的位置。评论者则围绕这些经典是否被高估、应该在职业生涯的哪个阶段读展开争论。
为什么经久不衰：它触及“被推荐”与“真读过”的差距，以及经典技术书何时读、是否必读的争论，至今仍有共鸣。
HN 评论精选
反驳作者：书各有用途，贬低 TAOCP/CLRS 常是没读懂，Knuth 的低层分析仍有实际价值。
那两份清单上的书我都读过，还有很多别的书也读过。不是因为这些都属于必读书目，而是因为我职业生涯很长，一直在努力持续提升自己的计算机科学知识。作者判定一份清单是正典、另一份不是，显得相当傲慢。那些书各有各的用处。这是否意味着一个人必须读其中任何一本才能成为好软件工程师？大概不必。但研读其中每一本，都会提升该书所覆盖特定领域里的技能。另外，为什么突然流行贬低 TAOCP 和 CLRS？我读这类文章时，总觉得作者真正想说的是：“我没读懂这些书，所以它们一定是垃圾。”我职业生涯很早就开始读 TAOCP，Knuth 那种低层分析方法多年来让我受益匪浅。正因此，当我需要在 8 位微控制器上优化计算量很大的算法，或手工调整密码算法以避免缓存侧信道攻击时，我能有逻辑地处理问题。对合适的学生来说，Knuth 是极好的老师；他不适合所有人，这也没什么问题。软件行业几十年前就不再是一刀切了。因此，像本文作者那样宣判什么是正典，纯属胡扯。
nanolith查看英文原文
I've read the books on both of those lists, among many others. Not because these are all required reading, but because I've had a long career and I've fought to continually improve my knowledge in Computer Science. It seems rather arrogant of the author to decree that one list is canon and the other list is not. Each of those books has its use. Does this mean that someone needs to read any of those books to be good at software? Probably not. But, studying each of those books will improve skills in the particular domains that the books cover. Also, why is it suddenly in vogue to bash TAOCP and CLRS? When I read these sorts of posts, I generally think that the author really means, "I didn't understand these books, so therefore, they must be crap." I started reading TAOCP very early in my career, and Knuth's low-level approach of analysis has served me quite well over the years. It's why, for instance, I don't balk when I need to optimize a computationally heavy algorithm on an 8-bit microcontroller, or when I have to hand-tune a cryptographic algorithm to avoid cache side channel attacks, I can approach the problem logically. Knuth is an excellent teacher for the right sort of student. He's not for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that. Software ceased being a one-size-fits-all field decades ago. For that reason, among many others, decrees of what is canon or not -- such as the one made by the author of this post -- are nothing but bunk.
GoF 适合有经验后读，否则容易滥用设计模式。
《设计模式》（GoF）这类书，可能只该在你已经有不少编写非平凡软件的经验后再读。若如此，它会非常有力地把你潜意识里积累的知识固化、清晰化。你大概早已对为什么某些东西错误或笨拙、另一些优雅有直觉，而《设计模式》会给你描述这些的词汇。若作为初学者读，其中的微妙之处会完全超出你的理解，最后你会试图毫无道理地把设计模式到处硬塞。
GuiA查看英文原文
The Gang of Four patterns book is one of those books that you should probably only read when you already have decent experience writing non trivial software. If you do so, it will formidably crystallize knowledge you've been acquiring subconsciously. You'll have probably been having gut feelings about why certain things are wrong or clunky and others are elegant, and Design Patterns will give you a vocabulary to describe these things. If you read it as a beginner, the subtleties of it all will go over your head, and you'll end up trying to cram design patterns everywhere without much sense or reason.
这些书有职业阶段价值，但现代编程中多数不如实践和库有用；TAOCP 只适合极少数人。
我认为这些书在人的职业生涯中有特定的时间点。我的第一份真正编程工作干了几年后，接到一个大项目。我每天回家都会翻《设计模式》，有时重读引言，有时重读具体模式。项目结果相当不错。如果我当时接的是 C++ 工作，大概会把《C++ 程序设计语言》翻烂；我那本已经挺旧，但不如 GoF 那本磨损得厉害。CLRS 可能不像从前那么有用了，因为绝大多数时候你直接用语言库提供的 ADT。当然，偶尔可以回去复习一些细节，但如果你在工作中写算法，你大概一直在做，CLRS 不会那么有启发。龙书对我来说晦涩难懂，书里几乎每样东西我都得另找讨论才明白。我没聪明到能把那些文字和数学解析成代码。怎么说呢，我是个相当平庸的程序员。这些书在我职业生涯的不同阶段帮过我，但我不觉得它们对现代编程有多大帮助。（注：我只啃得动 TAOCP 的头几章。我认为这些书只帮得到 Fabrice Bellard 那样的人。找到真正读完这些书的人，雇下他——如果你真的需要解决问题，而不只是把提交按钮接到 MySQL。）
jfoutz查看英文原文
I think those books have a specific time* in people's careers. My first real programming job, a couple years in i got a large project. I'd go home and flip through the design patterns book every day. Some days, rereading the introduction, some days rereading patterns. The project came out pretty well. If i'd gotten a C++ job instead, i'd probably have torn up the C++ programming language book. My copy is fairly worn, but not like that gof book. CLRS probably isn't as helpful as it once was, because the vast majority of time you just use an ADT from whatever library your language provides. Sure, maybe go review some subtleties from time to time, but if you're writing an algorithm for work, you probably do that all the time, CLRS isn't going to be that insightful. The dragon book was opaque to me. Just about every thing in that book, i had to go find another discussion of. I'm just not smart enough to parse those words and math into code. I dunno. I'm a pretty mediocre programmer. They've been helpful to me at various points in my career, but i don't think they are much help in modern programming. * I've only been able to chew through a couple chapters of TAOCP. I think the only programmers these books help are people like Fabrice Bellard. Find someone who's worked through those books, hire them. Well, if you really need to solve problems and you're not just hooking a submit button to mysql.
很多“必读”书实际少有人读；Design Patterns 枯燥，CLRS 不如 Skiena 易学，TAOCP/龙书被过度推荐。
你知道，我会把大多数程序员真正读过的书放到第二份清单里。有多少人真读过《代码大全》？（HN 可能是个糟糕样本。）我完全同意关于《设计模式》的说法。那可能是我尝试读（并失败）过的最枯燥的技术书（或任何书）——我打错成了“最direst”，弗洛伊德式笔误？问题是技术书不必写成那样。Michael Abrash 早期的书其实很有娱乐性。《Effective C++》和《Effective Java》都非常易读。很多人推荐 CLRS，我也确实学过其中部分，但我觉得 Skiena 的《算法设计手册》更平易近人、更令人愉快。如果你的目标是学习，我建议那本。CLRS 更像面向需要或想要掌握数学证明、或准备读研 CS 的人。TAOCP 和龙书就是那种总被推荐（在 SO、这里和其他地方）但我确信只有少数人真读过的经典例子。
cletus查看英文原文
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-Programming/dp/0673386023
历次讨论
同类还值得读
开源应用架构
The Architecture of Open Source Applications
《开源软件架构》（AOSA）是一本在线免费书，邀请知名开源项目的作者亲自剖析其内部设计，涵盖 SQLAlchemy、LLVM、Audacity、Apache、Bash 等系统。
编程与软件工程上首页 9 次 · 2011–2024aosabook.org编辑精选编程语言简史：简短、不完整且多半错误
A Brief, Incomplete, and Mostly Wrong History of Programming Languages
一篇以戏谑、故意不准确的方式回顾编程语言史的博客文章，用夸张轶事和讽刺定义串起 Lisp、C、C++、Java、JavaScript、PHP 等语言。
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2021james-iry.blogspot.comSQLite 是如何测试的
How SQLite is tested
SQLite 官方文档页，系统介绍 SQLite 的测试体系：多种测试方法（TCL 测试、模糊测试、回归测试、静态分析等）和海量测试用例，展示了这个小型开源项目如何靠极致测试获得…
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2025sqlite.org编辑精选高级编程语言（2009）
Advanced programming languages (2009)
Matt Might 的经典文章，按用途推荐“高级编程语言”：如果追求就业就选主流语言，如果追求表达力、学术研究或创业，则推荐 Haskell、OCaml、Scala 等函数式语…
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2009–2022matt.might.net我的 Forth 与栈机器经历
Yosefk - My history with Forth & stack machines
作者以亲身经历回顾了使用 Forth 语言和栈式机器的历程：既赞叹其简洁优雅、代码量小、可自举的优点，也坦率指出栈操作在实际编程中的痛苦，以及 Forth 社区文化中的问题。
编程与软件工程上首页 8 次 · 2010–2024yosefk.com编辑精选