Download Arab

4 Comments

1. WhoAmI says:

   March 17, 2010 at 6:53 am

   I’ve been programming in a high-level language for years without a CS background and have been looking for a “principle of programming and languages” type of book to round out the self-learning. There are textbooks expensive around, but this low cost alternative and soft fills the bill very well!
   Rating: 5 / 5
2. pilotbillp says:

   March 17, 2010 at 7:06 am

   This book clearly explains very simple programming for someone who last worked with BASIC in the 1980s. After borrowing a library copy, we wanted to keep a copy.
   Rating: 5 / 5
3. Belladonna Triste says:

   March 17, 2010 at 8:53 am

   Well, this book is well written, covering a lot of very basic programming concepts in a way that I think most people would find easy to use, but is also full of notches on the technical inaccuracy. Because of these problems, I can not really recommend the book.

   If you really want a fast, easy to read introduction to programming and do not care if you learn a lot of inaccuracies little in the way, well, you may find useful. But you can find plenty of books on Introduction to programming utility. Just sayin.

   As for the inaccuracies: Take the Book I, Chapter 1. Wang says that assembly language is easier to use than machine code, as “an assembly language command can replace a dozen or more machine language commands.” Um, sorry, but the languages of the Assembly are an accurate one correlation with the machine language. The reason assembly language is easier is because it will say something like “mov B3 B4″ (which is moving more from B3 to B4) instead of “10001 1110 0001 1100″. But each replaced assembly language command just a machine language command.

   Then, in Chapter 2, we have the statement that “structured programming that teaches programmers any program can be divided into … sequences, branches and loops. ” Um, actually, spaghetti code also includes sequences, branches and loops. None of these things is in any way unique to structured programming, nor is it a sign that is structured in a program.

   Well, I could list many things as this, and say, “If I never go to program in assembly language, why does it matter?” “If I’m never going to have to tell anyone if my code is structured or not, why should I care?” Well, it seems that an entry level programming book should not give inaccurate information. It is always a pain to be in a conversation about programming and find that are accidentally spit wrong “facts.” It is easy to show up at work or in social situations. Not to mention the fact that the more serious you get about programming, more of a pain it is to find you have to unlearn things so carefully learned.

   What I leads to another problem with this text. Serious students of computer science, including those with doctorates, often can be too dismissive of “amateurs”, people who have learned to code without taking formal classes or being hyper-mega-skilled genius. And yes, that’s a drag, as the evidence of a programmer in your code, not the grade (s) of cattle.

   But Wang seems so determined to correct this, that going overboard. Talking about how “the desire to beat each time technical training and many important programs were written by people in other areas (some of which had been the subject of intense study of computer science over the years by his own account) not correcting the mistake of assuming that ‘amateurs’ are, well, amateurish. Yes, Mr. Wang admits that once in a while computer scientists do fun things, but it really seems determined to prove that education and counting study for little or nothing in the real world.

   The reality is that this is an area where both the serious academic and amateur enthusiasts can contribute surprising – but leaving the former is cash to balance things.

   In addition, the attitude that “anyone can program” may be acceptable to most readers, but heaven help the reader to the poor, either can not program or experienced programmers, who must deal with the guy who thinks he’s an expert because he has learned some algorithms. The former feels like an idiot, because after all, “everyone” can do this, so it must be dumber than “all”. The second is not in trouble much less * * is a program director. Nothing slows down, the swamps below, and destroys programming projects as a member of management is not programmer who thinks “it’s easy – anyone can.”

   For more details on the past, check out The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Anniversary Edition (2nd Edition) and / or the psychology of Programming: Silver Anniversary Edition. Heck, check them out anyway – that give bright ideas in the programming world, and can tell a lot about what makes a programming project success or failure. Besides, is rumored to avoid pointy haired management for miles around.
   Rating: 2 / 5
4. charlie anderson says:

   March 17, 2010 at 9:59 am

   I’m not a big fan of the Dummies books or “how to” book that the author injects called “humor” This book, however, “written by a part-time comedian, not less, is excellent! Why??? Because he can tell in a few short sentences of concise plain English just what is the object-oriented programming.

   This is no small task easier! And I’m very seriously. 99% of programming books are incomprehensible gibberish total non-programmer, having never written through the eyes of their intended reader. One reviewer called this beautiful book gave two stars! Rather we should read a book about the psychology of programming “! The silver issue I mentioned.

   Based programming is a very good book for anyone wanting an overview of programming in writing clear concise style. This eulogy previous sentence is really high because it is a rare occurrence.
   Rating: 5 / 5