|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
title = "Seven Languages in Seven Weeks"
|
|
|
|
|
date = 2019-07-16
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[taxonomies]
|
|
|
|
|
tags = ["books", "reviews", "bruce a tate", "clojure", "haskell", "io", "prolog", "scala", "erlang", "ruby", "it"]
|
|
|
|
|
+++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[GoodReads summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7912517-seven-languages-in-seven-weeks):
|
|
|
|
|
You should learn a programming language every year, as recommended by The
|
|
|
|
|
Pragmatic Programmer. But if one per year is good, how about Seven Languages
|
|
|
|
|
in Seven Weeks? In this book you'll get a hands-on tour of Clojure, Haskell,
|
|
|
|
|
Io, Prolog, Scala, Erlang, and Ruby. Whether or not your favorite language is
|
|
|
|
|
on that list, you'll broaden your perspective of programming by examining
|
|
|
|
|
these languages side-by-side. You'll learn something new from each, and best
|
|
|
|
|
of all, you'll learn how to learn a language quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- more -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{ stars(stars=1) }}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A couple of random thoughts about this book:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, you have the idea that, for each language the author would spend
|
|
|
|
|
one week (I'll not get into the fact that each "week" has 3 days only). This
|
|
|
|
|
is a great idea: How much of the concepts of a programming language can you
|
|
|
|
|
capture in just one week. Are the interfaces good? Are they simple and easy to
|
|
|
|
|
understand? The fact is, the author did not spend one week on each language.
|
|
|
|
|
In the Clojure chapter, he mentions that he got the idea after a month. So
|
|
|
|
|
instead of trying to capture the good and bad points in one week -- which,
|
|
|
|
|
again, it's a good thing, so one can understand how "ergonomic" a language is
|
|
|
|
|
-- the author decided the reader should only take one week per language.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second, there is a huge about of "obvious", "obviously" and "simple". Sure, it
|
|
|
|
|
may seem obvious for the author, but most of the time, things are not obvious
|
|
|
|
|
for people who never saw anything related.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only there is an abuse of "obvious" things, sometimes the author seems to
|
|
|
|
|
either not understand some concepts of the language or tries to simplify an
|
|
|
|
|
explanation to the point it sounds wrong -- and I just realized that 'cause
|
|
|
|
|
I've read books about some of the languages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And there are times when the author shows a piece of code, with something
|
|
|
|
|
completely new, and forgets to explain what that new thing means. I'm glad
|
|
|
|
|
I've read books about Clojure and Haskell before, otherwise I'd never
|
|
|
|
|
understand what the thing really was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On the general, it's a book about seven languages. Instead of reading this
|
|
|
|
|
book, I'd suggest getting the list of languages and going after them in other
|
|
|
|
|
ways instead of reading this.
|
