Great article. I remember first learning how to program as a kid in the late 1990s, though my platform was DOS-based Windows since my parents had a desktop running Windows 95. I also remember various book series such as the "...for Dummies" books, "The Idiot's Guide to ...", and "Learn ____ in 24 Hours." I remember going to my public library and checking out a few of these to learn languages such as QBASIC, Visual Basic, and C++.
One of the pieces of advice that I remembered reading online in the early 2000s was being careful about learning programming from these types of guides and instead learning from better books, such as "the classics" (think K&R, SICP, Programming Pearls, etc.) and the well-written O'Reilly guides. I didn't really understand the advice at the time as a young programmer, but I followed it. For example, about 20 years ago I took an introductory C programming class at my local community college, where the professor did not require a specific textbook. Based on online recommendations I ended up purchasing K&R, which turned out to be a wonderful choice; I still have my well-worn copy of K&R on my bookshelf.
Reading this article, I see the wisdom of the advice I was given. Don't get me wrong; I don't want to paint all Dummies-style books with a broad brush. Indeed, I have fond memories of learning how to use Office 97 as a kid from Office 97 for Windows for Dummies (some of that knowledge is still useful even when using Office 365), and I'd seek out such books for quick primers for large software programs such as Adobe Photoshop. However, for programming Sturgeon's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law) seems to apply. The situation hasn't improved much today; while there are far more resources online today than there were in 1998 when I started programming, one needs guidance to help separate low-quality resources from high-quality resources.
Thankfully the author of the article kept programming despite the shortcomings of the book he used!
One of the pieces of advice that I remembered reading online in the early 2000s was being careful about learning programming from these types of guides and instead learning from better books, such as "the classics" (think K&R, SICP, Programming Pearls, etc.) and the well-written O'Reilly guides. I didn't really understand the advice at the time as a young programmer, but I followed it. For example, about 20 years ago I took an introductory C programming class at my local community college, where the professor did not require a specific textbook. Based on online recommendations I ended up purchasing K&R, which turned out to be a wonderful choice; I still have my well-worn copy of K&R on my bookshelf.
Reading this article, I see the wisdom of the advice I was given. Don't get me wrong; I don't want to paint all Dummies-style books with a broad brush. Indeed, I have fond memories of learning how to use Office 97 as a kid from Office 97 for Windows for Dummies (some of that knowledge is still useful even when using Office 365), and I'd seek out such books for quick primers for large software programs such as Adobe Photoshop. However, for programming Sturgeon's Law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law) seems to apply. The situation hasn't improved much today; while there are far more resources online today than there were in 1998 when I started programming, one needs guidance to help separate low-quality resources from high-quality resources.
Thankfully the author of the article kept programming despite the shortcomings of the book he used!