Have you read these?

Not Active

Jun Du wrote:

Many developers have gone through all the stages

In most cases they have not gone through these stages but rather been given the title or responsibilities. An important distinction I believe. I'm sure we can all relate experiences with a lead or architect that had no idea what they were doing and only got the position through seniority.

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

Member 96

Never heard of them and never read them and I absolutely disagree. I consider myself quite professional having made a living on apps I designed and coded in a highly competitive market for well over a decade now. Books are strictly 20th century, anyone can learn anything they need online now and the school of hard knocks can't be substituted by any book or course of study.

There is no failure only feedback

Not Active

John C wrote:

the school of hard knocks can't be substituted

but it can certainly be augmented with addition learning from other sources and other subjects. IMO that is the mark of a professional, always trying to improve oneself beyond the narrow skills of ones immediate position.

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

Not Active

And what is the difference between the good programmer and the below-average one? How does the below-average become good? Do you discount the message because some misuse it or don't know how to interrupt it correctly?

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

Ian Shlasko

Don't discount the message... Change the message... Instead of "Here's a great new design pattern that will make everything work better!" it should be "Here's another possible way to design your system, and here's when it should be used: ..." Unfortunately, that wouldn't sell as many books, so it'll never happen.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

Not Active

Ian Shlasko wrote:

"Here's a great new design pattern that will make everything work better!"

I can't recall any book making such a claim. Could be interrupting it as such because of your bias?

Ian Shlasko wrote:

"Here's another possible way to design your system, and here's when it should be used: ..."

Curious because this is what I've seen in the Design Patterns books I've looked at.

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

Member 96

Could not agree more, but books are not the way to go these days.

There is no failure only feedback

Ian Shlasko

Mark Nischalke wrote:

I can't recall any book making such a claim. Could be interrupting it as such because of your bias?

I don't generally read those kinds of books (I prefer brief Internet articles, such as CP), so I'm making assumptions based on my experiences dealing with people who HAVE read those kinds of books.

Mark Nischalke wrote:

Curious because this is what I've seen in the Design Patterns books I've looked at.

Then it seems people are getting the wrong idea from it.

Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)

Not Active

How the hell can you even make any comments on this subject :mad: You are truely an ignorant person and more a danger to the profession, and general population of the world, than any books you have not read. Try opening your mind and forming your own opinion. IMO you have no credibility here.

I know the language. I've read a book. - _Madmatt

Jeff Connelly

Mark Nischalke wrote:

Is this fault of the book or its authors though?

Guns don't kill people, people do. Having said that, I view the GoF book kind of like some people view an album like Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys. Important? Yes. Influential? Yes. Does anyone actually listen to it? No. In other words, if you don't have the book I wouldn't bother buying it. Get a newer book that is more applicable to what you're doing, or search forums and the web, but in any case you can leverage patterns without reading that book.

Jeff Connelly

Ennis Ray Lynch, Jr. wrote:

It doesn't matter whose fault it is, the premise in the original post was that the book benefits our profession. It does not.

You're just off a little, that's all. It's like saying alcohol has hurt our society, when in fact it has brought a lot of enjoyment and health when used correctly. A book that is technically correct can't hurt anything. You might want to say that misapplication or overapplication of the concepts in the book has hurt the profession. The book itself has helped our profession.

Jeff Connelly

Well he might have a point about some not-so-great C++ code. But basically, the book is a catalog of preexisting solutions to software problems. So it's kind of hard to call it "merely" that, since that's what it claims to be, and that's a valuable thing. If it gets misapplied, that's the programmer's fault, not the book's.

Jeff Connelly

John C wrote:

the school of hard knocks can't be substituted by any book or course of study.

Comments like this are so inane. None of the elements of a lifetime of learning can be substituted by any of the other elements. Sometimes experience is helpful, sometimes it's not. Try learning to play blackjack in a casino, for example, instead of from a book and we'll see how bad of a blackjack player you are. Considering the fact that books are "online" now makes your comment about books being "20th century" quite.... weird.

John C wrote:

anyone can learn anything they need online now and the school of hard knocks can't be substituted by any book or course of study

Well which is it? Can you learn anything you need online or not? I thought "any course of study" would include "learning anything they need online", but then that can't be substituted for the school of hard knocks? If you're only learning by "hard knocks", you're wasting a lot of time.

pdohara

Books are good for grasping a paradigm shift. It is difficult to make the jump from procedural to Object Oriented thinking simply by reading articles. One needs to stay with it longer than that. One needs to understand many aspects of the new paradigm a little so they can understand the whole. I agree that for many people the Internet provide ample source material to hone their skills. I find that it is unwise to discount any tool that is available. Best to understand the advantages of the tool and use what is appropriate.

Tanks for your support
Pat O
Blog

_ _ _
/*\== /*\== /*\==
<ooo> <ooo> <ooo>

Alexander DiMauro

pdohara wrote:

Books are good for grasping a paradigm shift.

Yes, I agree. I'm currently trying to make the transition from coder to architect, and books have been most helpful. Even some more recent ones: Architecting Applications for the Enterprise[^] by Dino Esposito Professional ASP.NET Design Patterns[^] by Scott Millett And, the DOFactory Design Pattern and Architectural Guidance software: DOFactory[^] I've found that the above references not only describe design patterns, but also when/where (and when/where NOT) to use them. Especially the last two even give full, real-world example applications, not just demo code. But after the books, I do a lot of Googling with Google, and Googling with Bing.

Member 96

Jeff Connelly wrote:

Try learning to play blackjack in a casino, for example, instead of from a book and we'll see how bad of a blackjack player you are.

Speaking of inane. :) Writing a book are you? Get thee hence troll. :)

There is no failure only feedback

Jeff Connelly

John C wrote:

Try learning to play blackjack in a casino, for example, instead of from a book and we'll see how bad of a blackjack player you are. Speaking of inane.

What's your point? There are some things in life where experience is a terrible teacher, and that's a perfect example of one. It's basically a math problem that can be solved by computers, but generally not by people. No, I'm not writing a book. Frankly your reply makes no sense.

Member 96

:laugh: Happy new year!

There is no failure only feedback

SeattleC

Design Patters is the only interesting thing to happen in programming language design since Object Orientation. It is an attempt to capture concepts at a higher level than a built-in function to make them easily usable. Yes, it's true that most patterns are reasonably obvious to an experienced developer (one who has worked them out from first principles). You can also code doubly linked lists from scratch every time instead of using std::list<>. But only a moron does, because it's not worth the debugging time. You'll half-remember something or make a typing mistake or whatever. The fact that patterns didn't set your personal world on fire doesn't mean they aren't important. Maybe it means we need a more concise way to describe them. Maybe it means we didn't capture enough patterns. Maybe it means there needs to be a sample implementation of each one. The fact that they can even be applied without thinking makes them better than flailing around for three weeks to reinvent something that your peers already know how to do. And some patterns (visitor, interpreter) are actually not so obvious. Interpreter in particular is something that seems hard until you hear it described, at which time it doesn't seem so daunting anymore, and you try it. I like patterns. I wish there was more really new stuff happening in the programming world. Java is a teenager. C++ is old enough to vote, and Object Oriented design is retirement age (Think SIMULA-67, not Smalltalk).

ely_bob

Jeff Connelly wrote:

In other words, if you don't have the book I wouldn't bother buying it.

It is usefull as something to occupy your time on the plane... until you get bored .. which usually happens before you take off..... :laugh: But seriously, GOF is a good book to read at least once, but best read by someone who has been programming for at least a couple of years. It gives a conversational framework for interacting with people who are "pattern happy" as well as rounding out the self taught programmer as per recognizing that what they have been doing has been done before... I purchased the book, and have been leisurely reading it mostly to appease my thirst for fancy word dropping in the presence of other more senior programmers who seem, at least at my company, to like to use large words to make themselves seem fancy. therefore I've implemented an interpreter pattern using strategies, observers, adorners and factories to develop my managed Data Driven scripting language. (and once i get a nice editor i might post it's code and a tutorial if i get the time) :doh:

I'd blame it on the Brain farts.. But let's be honest, it really is more like a Methane factory between my ears some days then it is anything else...
-----
"The conversations he was having with himself were becoming ominous."-.. On the radio...