Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Books for a Comp Sci Graduate Student?
peetm (781139) writes "Having visited with me and my wife recently, the girlfriend of an ex-student of mine (now taking an M.Sc. in pure CS) asked me to suggest useful books for her boyfriend: '... He recently mentioned that he would love to have a home library, like the one you have, with variety of good, useful and must-have books from different authors. ... Mostly, I was thinking your advice would be priceless when it comes to computer science related books, but .. I would appreciate any sort of advice on books from you. ...' Whilst I could scan my own library for ideas, I doubt that I'm really that 'current' with what's good, or whether my favorites would be appropriate: I've not taught on the M.Sc. course for a while, and in some cases, and just given their price, I shouldn't really recommend such books that are just pet loves of mine — especially to someone who doesn't know whether they'd even be useful.
And, before you ask: YES, we do have a reading list, but given that he'll receive this as part of this course requirement anyway, I'd like to tease readers to suggest good reads around the periphery of the subject." I'll throw out Pierce's Types and Programming Languages (and probably Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages ), and Okasaki's Purely Functional Data Structures .
And, before you ask: YES, we do have a reading list, but given that he'll receive this as part of this course requirement anyway, I'd like to tease readers to suggest good reads around the periphery of the subject." I'll throw out Pierce's Types and Programming Languages (and probably Advanced Topics in Types and Programming Languages ), and Okasaki's Purely Functional Data Structures .
I don't think knuth's 3 volumes have dated at all- they're still the definitive computer science tomes.
A book on consise exposition without complex family relations; one that cuts right to the content. That would be a good start.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Brooks - "The Mythical Man-month"
Yourdon - "Death March"
DeMarco & Lister - "Peopleware"
Of course he may change majors after reading them.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Code Complete has been one of the most useful texts that I have found.
Compiler construction teaches many different aspects of computer science, and this is a classic.
One of the best-written technical books, ever. On the practical side, but doing useful things (tm) is not illegal in computer science.
A good introduction to the fundamentals of theoretical computer science.
Stephan
I recommend "Design Patterns" by Gamma, Helm, Johnson, Vlissides
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
http://www.edwardtufte.com/tuf...
The brilliance of calculus is the usage of infinitely many infinitely small rectangular slices to nonetheless derive an exact measurement of the finite area under a curve. At its core, calculus is the merging of the infinite and the finite. When you truly understand it, it is one of the most elegant and beautiful discoveries in human history.
You seem to misunderstand what a citation is. A citation is not saying, "Here, this is true because Mr. XYZ said so," but, "Here, this is being accepted as true (or just considered even) because Mr. XYZ gave good argument/data in source ABC." It is not an appeal to authority, it is reducing redundancy by not re-deriving something already written about elsewhere. And this is a good science practice, as it is rare to be working on a topic where no one has already done some theory work or found some relevant experimental data.
You should have spent a lot of time deriving things in your undergrad and early grad courses, and you should double check the calculations of any citation central to your work to catch typos or actual mistakes. But by the time of writing actual papers or your doctoral thesis, you shouldn't be wasting reader's times by re-deriving things in detail beyond what is needed for outlining background and covering your premises. Unless your new contributions are a better way to present or derive the same solution, or showing a mistake in the derivation, you move on to deriving new things while cite others for stuff already done.
Cite Knuth... This is, of course, good science.
Well at least Professor Knuth is still alive, and I don't [YET!] need to refer to the poor man as spinning in his grave.
AC posted an excellent response here.. In the event you're filtering AC's, take the time to read it, as it's completely on point.
I would add is this: if you've never completed a Masters thesis or Doctoral dissertation, just try submitting one to your committee without adequate citations. If you write somewhere "I used well-known algorithm ABC because of XYZ" and you don't have a citation for that algorithm, you'll be sent back for rewrites pretty quickly to add appropriate citations.
By way of example, in my Masters thesis several years ago, I mentioned Unix diff , without a citation. Why would this need a citation? It was mostly mentioned in passing, and every computer scientist under the sun knows what diff is, right?
Committee came back asking for further citations on a few things, including diff (which, for the record, is "Hunt, J. W., and McIlroy, M. D. An algorithm for differential file comparison. CSTR, 41 (1976).")
Using citations isn't an appeal to authority. It's akin to using an existing library call in programming. Just as you wouldn't roll-your-own quick sort algorithm when coding, someone writing a scientific paper doesn't re-invent every algorithm ever derived. You find someone who has already done that, and you cite them. The AOCP is useful in this regard due to the sheerly massive number of algorithms Knuth describes. It's hard to go through a Computer Science program and not use one of these algorithms. Knuth himself likewise cites all of the algorithms in the AOCP, so it's not an appeal to his authority, as he delegates that out to others appropriately. It's simply useful because instead of having to track down papers written in the 1960's on your own, you can cite Knuth who cites those papers for you. This is why the AOCP is useful for a graduate student.
FWIW, I cited Knuth. I needs an algorithm to calculate variance, and another on the Box-Meuller transformation. Art of Computer Programming had one for each, which I adapted for my needs, and cited appropriately.
Yaz