Timeline for Computer science for mathematicians
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
36 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 24, 2022 at 19:09 | comment | added | wlad | @Z.M By "systems", I mean with no runtime, with no garbage collector, and with access to pointers. Rust is most of those things, I guess - but it doesn't expose pointers unless you use "unsafe". | |
| Dec 24, 2022 at 19:05 | comment | added | Z. M |
@wlad What is the system paradigm? Rust seems to be quite different from C in the sense that its lifetime depends much more on linear logic, and also Rust demands a modifier mut for variables with side-effect, and in that sense, it also has some sort of functional programming.
|
|
| Dec 24, 2022 at 18:35 | history | edited | YCor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
removed capitals from title
|
| Dec 24, 2022 at 17:25 | comment | added | wlad | Basically, get a sample of programming paradigms. Indirectly, you will learn a lot of CS. The two most eye-opening are the systems paradigm (C / Rust / C++) and the functional paradigm (Haskell / Scheme / Clojure / OCaml / Elixir). | |
| Dec 24, 2022 at 17:17 | comment | added | wlad | Learning to program in both C and Haskell can teach you a lot of CS on its own. | |
| Oct 10, 2018 at 16:45 | history | edited | David White | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Edited to fix typos and add a tag, since it was on the front page anyway
|
| Nov 3, 2012 at 10:33 | answer | added | Julien Puydt | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 20:28 | comment | added | vzn | see also tcs.se, "what books should everyone read" cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/3253/… | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 20:23 | comment | added | vzn | you also mention directly, "how computers work". see eg cs.se, cs.stackexchange.com/questions/3390/how-does-a-computer-work which also has a link to a nearly identical programmers.se question | |
| Sep 20, 2012 at 20:21 | comment | added | vzn | it depends. do you want highly mathematical/technical refs or would you like to approach it with "zen beginners mind"? for the latter consider computer science books aimed at young adults but might also be useful to newcomer adults— see cs.se, cs.stackexchange.com/questions/888/… | |
| Apr 12, 2011 at 13:57 | answer | added | yatima2975 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 12, 2011 at 12:15 | answer | added | none | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 14, 2011 at 15:01 | answer | added | datageist | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 4, 2011 at 5:47 | comment | added | Kaveh | You may want to check ACM's classification to get a less biased idea about CS: portal.acm.org/ccs.cfm?CFID=12395215&CFTOKEN=59446756 | |
| Jan 9, 2011 at 2:32 | answer | added | Jérôme JEAN-CHARLES | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 22:35 | answer | added | Kjell Wooding | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 22:01 | answer | added | Jose Arnaldo Bebita | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 19:12 | answer | added | Adam | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 6, 2011 at 4:10 | answer | added | grshutt | timeline score: 8 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 21:28 | comment | added | Suvrit | @Dmitri: my statement was not to be taken tooo literally (which is why I put a ;-) there). However, recall that Knuth says in TAOCP: "...any person more than casually interested in computers should be well schooled in machine language..."; and then, there is the MIX computer, and the MMIX computer that Knuth uses to show implementation of some of the algorithms that are described in English.... | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 21:27 | answer | added | Gerhard Paseman | timeline score: 11 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 20:48 | comment | added | Dmitri Pavlov | @Suvrit: I do not quite understand your remark about assembly code. There is actually very little assembly code in TAOCP and it is used to illustrate some concepts that cannot be easily illustrated using high-level languages (like coroutine implementation). The absolute majority of algorithms in TAOCP is written in English. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 20:22 | comment | added | Suvrit | @Steve: i was just attempting to be partially cheeky; i understood what you meant / implied. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 19:05 | answer | added | drbobmeister | timeline score: 15 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 18:56 | answer | added | Justin Hilburn | timeline score: 21 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 18:18 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | @Suvrit--What I mean is that while on the one hand "Teach Yourself Java" isn't a CS book so much as a programming book, TAOCP is more a CS book, and the reader shouldn't expect these to be the same. Moreover, books about computational complexity or category theory for CS are not the place to learn the basic elements of CS proper. Only after studying actual practical algorithms in some detail can a reader really gain the full benefit of the more abstract views of the subject. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 18:11 | answer | added | John D. Cook | timeline score: 23 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 18:08 | comment | added | Suvrit | @Steve, hey there's a lot of assembler code in TAOCP, so certainly a very programming set of books ;-) | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 18:05 | answer | added | Michal Kotowski | timeline score: 19 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 18:01 | comment | added | Steve Huntsman | Knuth's TAOCP are the best CS (not programming!) books for anyone. | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 17:43 | answer | added | Dan Piponi | timeline score: 10 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 17:24 | answer | added | Noah Stein | timeline score: 28 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 17:06 | comment | added | Pete L. Clark | I don't want to sidetrack the discussion too much, but: is it clear that the best CS books for mathematicians would be any different from the best CS books for CS people? By contrast, I well understand the need for physics-for-mathematicians books, because math as viewed and practiced by physicists is not a subset of math as viewed and practiced by mathematicians. But is this the case for CS? [Not rhetorical questions. By the way, I don't know much CS myself and am looking forward to the answers.] | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 17:02 | comment | added | Qiaochu Yuan | I'm not sure I understand the first question. Is it about software or hardware? | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 16:54 | answer | added | Igor Rivin | timeline score: 18 | |
| Jan 5, 2011 at 16:49 | history | asked | Spencer | CC BY-SA 2.5 |