程序员没有真实读的书（Books Programmers Don't Really Read）

最常被程序员们谎称读过的计算机书籍

中文翻译：http://www.billthelizard.com/2008/12/books-programmers-dont-really-read.html

马克·吐温曾经说过，所谓经典小说，就是指很多人希望读过，但很少人真正花时间去读的小说。这种说法同样适用于“经典”的计算机书籍。

在Stack Overflow(以及其它很多软件论坛)上，诸如”程序员最应该读的计算机书籍有哪些?“这样的问题会周期性的出现。这样的问题不断的被提出、被回答，只是形式不同罢了。相同的几本书总是会出现在清单的前几名内，所以，如果想知道人们谈论的都是些什么，你有必要去读一读这些书的。

大多数程序员真正读过的计算机书籍

1. 代码大全(Code Complete)——两届Software Jolt Award震撼大奖得主！
2. 程序员修炼之道（The Pragmatic Programmer）
3. C程序设计语言( C Programming Language)(第2版)
4. 重构:改善既有代码的设计（Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code）
5. 人月神话（The Mythical Man-Month）
6. 编码——隐匿在计算机软硬件背后的语言（Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software）
7. Head First 设计模式（Head First Design Patterns）
8. 编程珠玑（Programming Pearls）
9. Effective Java中文版（Effective Java (2nd Edition)）or Effective C++（第三版）中文版
10. Test Driven Development: By Example

上面的这些书我自己都读过，所以我不难相信很多不是很优秀的程序员也都读过它们。如果你对编程有足够的兴趣，能够来到这里读这篇博客，你很可能读过其中的大部分，甚至还有很多不在这个清单中的，所以我就不浪费时间每本书都评论一番了。我想说的是，这个清单上的每本书都是它各自领域里的奇书。所以，很多有愿望不断提高自己的编程技术的程序员都读过这些书，这就不足为怪了。

在人们备受推崇的计算机书籍中，还有一类书受到了独特的待遇。我称下面这个清单为“最常被程序员们谎称读过的计算机书籍”。这并不是说推荐这些书的人都没有真正读过它们。我只是有相当的信心怀疑更多的人只是在口头上宣称读过下列书籍，而实际上很少人真正读过它们。下面就是这个清单。

最常被程序员们谎称读过的计算机书籍

1. 算法导论（Introduction to Algorithms）(CLRS)这本书的名称是所有出版过的计算机书籍中最让人误解一个。它被广泛的使用在很多大学里，通常被当作毕业生必需的算法课程。于是，只要在大学里上过计算机课程的学生几乎都有一本这样的书。然而，除非你拥有计算机硕士学位(而且是算法研究领域的)，我怀疑你顶多只读过算法导论（Introduction to Algorithms）里节选的几章内容。这个书名让人误解，是因为”Introduction”这个词让人以为它很适合初级程序员。实际上不是。这本书对算法做尽可能详尽综合的介绍，就像其它一些随处可见的类似的书一样。请不要再把这本书推荐给初学者。
2. 编译原理(Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools)(the Dragon Book).这本恐龙封面的书涵盖了开发一个编译器你所需要的全部的知识。它的内容包括词汇分析，语法分析，类型检查，代码优化，以及其它很多高深的题目。请不要把这本书推荐给初级程序员，他们需要的只是分析简单的包含数学公式或HTML的字符串。除非你真的需要实现一个能够实用的编译器(或解释器)，你根本不需要掌握这本“恐龙”书的全部强大威力。把它推荐给一个遇到简单文本分析问题的人，这证明你根本没有读过它。
3. 计算机程序设计艺术(The Art of Computer Programming)(TAOCP)我经常听到人们把这本书描述为“每个程序员必读”的系列计算机书籍。我认为这明显不是实情。在我说出这样大不敬的话、被你们用板砖拍死之前，请让我做解释一下。这不是一本让你一页一页翻着读的书。这是一本参考大全书。把它放在你的书架上看起来会很不错(实际上也它确实很好)，但如果想把它通读一遍，你需要几年时间，而且最后什么都没记住。这并不是说手边放这样一本书没有什么价值。它是一本参考书，当我遇到难题，走投无路时，很多次我都在这本书里找到办法。但这本书终究是被我当作参考书。它复杂难懂，很理论，里面的例子都是汇编语言的。好的一面是，如果你想在这本书里寻找针对某一问题的解决方案，如果你找不到，那就说明这个问题无解。它是一本对它所涉及到的领域做了最最详尽介绍的一本书。
4. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software(Gang of Four)这本书是唯一一本在这个清单里我从头到尾读过的书，读的结果是，我不知道该把这本书归到哪个类别。它出现在这个清单里，并不是因为我认为只有很少人真正读过它。很多人都读过。只是因为有更多推荐过这本书的人自己却没有读过。Design Patterns这边书的问题在于，很多书里给出的信息，你在其它很多地方都能看到。这样就使得一个初学者在维基百科上读了几篇关于设计模式的内容后，就敢在面试中宣称自己看过这本书。这就是为什么Singleton成了一种新的全局变量的原因。如果有更多的人花时间读过这本也叫做Gang of Four的书的原著，那世界上就不会有这么多人会把17种设计模式硬塞到一个日志(logging)框架里了。这本书最精彩的部分是每章里描述如何正确的使用一种模式的段落。遗憾的是，这些精华却在很多其它设计模式资料里被漏掉了。
5. C++程序设计语言(The C++ Programming Language)这本书不像一本编程教材，更像一本编程语言参考。有很多的迹象表明有人确实读过这本书，否则我们不可能有这么多的C++ 编译器可选择。编程初学者(或者甚至其它语言的专家)，如果想学C++，不应该直接去啃C++程序设计语言(The C++ Programming Language)这本书。告诉他们去读《C++ Primer中文版》。

正如我之前说的，我知道你们当中会有一些人真正的读过这些书。那这篇文章不是针对你的，针对的是那些企图通过假装读过这些书来表现自己的民众。 如果你自己没有读过这些计算机书籍，请不要推荐给别人。这样做会耽误别人的时间，误人子弟，因为一些阅历更丰富的人可能会有更好的书(更针对某一领域，更容易理解，跟某种编程语言或某种编程水平更契合的书)来推荐。除此之外，你也能避免被那些真正读过计算机程序设计艺术(The Art of Computer Programming)的人用MMIX知识给拷问住造成的尴尬(如果你不知道我在说什么，那我指的就是你)。

[本文英文原文链接：Books Programmers Claim to Have Read ]

        
英文原著：http://www.billthelizard.com/2008/12/books-programmers-dont-really-read.html

Books Programmers Don't Really Read


Mark Twain once said that a classic novel is one that many people want to have read, but few want to take the time to actually read. The same could be said of "classic" programming books.

Periodically over on Stack Overflow (and in many other programming forums) the question comes up about what books are good for programmers to read. The question has been asked and answered several times, in several different ways. The same group of books always seems to rise to the top, so it's worth it to take a look at these books to see what everyone is talking about.

Disclosure: All of the links in the following lists are Amazon affiliate links. If you're opposed to me making a few cents off this blog, but you're interested in any of these books, they're easy enough to find by searching Google for the individual titles.

Books Most Programmers Have Actually Read

   1. Code Complete
   2. The Pragmatic Programmer
   3. C Programming Language (2nd Edition)
   4. Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code
   5. The Mythical Man-Month
   6. Code: The Hidden Language of Computer Hardware and Software
   7. Head First Design Patterns
   8. Programming Pearls
   9. Effective Java (2nd Edition)
      or Effective C++
  10. Test Driven Development: By Example

I've read all of these books myself, so I have no difficulty believing that any moderately competent programmer has read them as well. If you're interested enough in programming that you're reading this blog, you've probably read most, if not all, of the books in this list. For this reason, I won't spend time reviewing each one individually. I'll just say that each of the books on the list in an exceptional book on its respective topic. There's a good reason that most software developers who are interested in improving their skills have read most of these books.

Among the most commonly recommended programming books there is another group that deserves special consideration. I call the next list "Books Programmers Claim to Have Read". This isn't to say that no one who recommends these books has actually read them. I just have reason to suspect that a lot more people claim to have read the following books than have actually read them. Here's the list.

Books Programmers Claim to Have Read

   1. 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.

      The title is misleading because the word "Introduction" leads one to believe that the book is a good choice for beginning programmers. It isn't. The book is as comprehensive a guide to algorithms as you are likely to find anywhere. Please stop recommending it to beginners.

   2. Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools (the Dragon Book).
      The Dragon Book covers everything you need to know to write a compiler. It covers lexical analysis, syntax analysis, type checking, code optimization, and many other advanced topics. Please stop recommending it to beginning programers who need to parse a simple string that contains a mathematical formula, or HTML. Unless you actually need to implement a working compiler (or interpreter), you probably don't need to bring the entire force of the Dragon to bear. Recommending it to someone who has a simple text parsing problem proves you haven't read it.

   3. The Art of Computer Programming (TAOCP)
      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. TAOCP was not written to be read from cover to cover. It's a reference set. It looks impressive (it is impressive) sitting on your shelf, but it would take several years to read it through with any kind of retention rate at all.

      That's not to say that it's not worthwhile to have a copy of TAOCP handy as a reference. I've used my set several times when I was stuck and couldn't find help anywhere else. But TAOCP is always my reference of last resort. It's very dense and academic, and the examples are all in assembly language. On the positive side, if you're looking for the solution to a problem in TAOCP (and the appropriate volume has been published) and you can't find it, the solution probably doesn't exist. It's extremely comprehensive over the topic areas that it covers.

   4. Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software (Gang of Four)
      Design Patterns is the only book on this list I've personally read from cover to cover, and as a result I had a hard time deciding which list it belongs on. It's on this list not because I think that few people have read this book. Many have read it, it's just that a lot more people claim to have read it than have actually read it.

      The problem with Design Patterns is that much of the information in the book (but not enough of it) is accessible elsewhere. That makes it easy for beginners to read about a few patterns on Wikipedia, then claim in a job interview that they've read the book. This is why Singleton is the new global variable. If more people took the time to read the original Gang of Four, you'd see fewer people trying to cram 17 patterns into a logging framework. The very best part of the GoF book is the section in each chapter that explains when it is appropriate to use a pattern. This wisdom is sadly missing from many of the other sources of design pattern lore.

   5. The C++ Programming Language
      This book is more of a language reference than a programming guide. There's certainly plenty of evidence that someone has read this book, since otherwise we wouldn't have so many C++ compilers to choose from.

      Beginning programmers (or even experts in other languages) who want to learn C++, though, should not be directed to The C++ Programming Language. Tell them to read C++ Primer instead.

As I said before, I know there are a few of you who have actually read these books. This post isn't intended for you, it's intended for the multitudes who are trying to appear smarter by pretending to have read them. Please stop recommending books to others that you haven't read yourself. It's counter productive, as often there is a better book (more focused on a specific problem domain, easier to understand, geared more toward a specific programming language or programming skill level) that someone more knowledgeable could recommend. Besides that, you may end up embarrassing yourself when someone who has actually read TAOCP decides to give you a MMIX pop quiz (if you don't know what I'm talking about, then this means you).