[kragen]

Code's good but it doesn't cover Kleisli categories and Kleisli composition, Peano arithmetic, parametric polymorphism, sum types, pattern matching, or any of numerous other things covered in Maguire's How These Things Work. So it's not accurate to say Code is "far more comprehensive"; Code mentions FORTRAN, ALGOL, COBOL, PL/1, and BASIC, but the example programs it contains are written in assembly, ALGOL, and BASIC. It doesn't contain any programs you can actually run except for an three-line BASIC program and some even simpler assembly programs.

[grumple]

You are correct, Code does not contain all of the knowledge relevant to computer science. In fact, no book does, as far as I'm aware. But it is far more comprehensive than the OP because it covers a greater breadth of subjects and in greater depth with more accessibility. You're comparing 50 pages of blog posts to 300 pages of book.

[kragen]

I think there's more computer science in those 50 pages, really. It's an easy win.

[bordercases]

"The Architecture of Symbolic Computers" by Kogge comes close.

[danielvaughn]

It's very depressing that I've been a developer for 8 years and I've never heard any of those terms you mentioned. I'm self taught but I've always felt like I should go back and really learn the fundamentals.

[eat]

I'm not saying you shouldn't always strive to learn new things (for your own personal growth and curiosity), but I think it's important to point out that the link between being a developer and knowing about these things-- esoteric topics of applied Mathematics-- is pretty weak.

Imagine a carpenter spending their time getting a chemistry degree in order to better understand how wood glue works.

[murgindrag]

I don't think so. Understanding what goes on underneath the hood is really what differentiates decent coders from great engineers. Compare the data structures of Subversion to those of git. Or look at some of the work John Carmack did in video games. That requires depth.

If your goal is to be a carpenter who puts together housing frames, you absolutely don't need depth. You're also interchangeable and get paid union blue collar wages. On the other hand, if you want to be a craftsman who invents new wooden things, you need depth in some direction, be that structural engineering, artistic, or otherwise.

There's a ceiling you hit unless you learn much more of this stuff. The direction is your choice (but new APIs ain't it -- we're talking depth).

[elbear]

Not everyone needs to be great.

What I actually want to say is that OP shouldn't feel guilty about not knowing those things. It's okay to want to master these things, if it's what you want. But it's pointless to feel bad about not knowing them.

[kragen]

Of course there is no necessity for excellence. The only necessary thing about human life is death; everything else is optional. Before your death, you can cultivate excellence in yourself, or not — many people instead cultivate hatred, addiction, or greed. There are many ways to cultivate excellence; learning is only one of them, and there are many things to learn. Mathematics, and in particular logic (which is what we are talking about here) are the foundation of all objective knowledge, but objective knowledge is not the only kind that has value.

The true philosopher, motivated by love for the truth rather than pride, is so noble in spirit that when she sees evidence that she may be in error, she immediately investigates it rather than turning away; and if she discovers that the evidence is valid, she immediately changes her position. I see such nobility so routinely among mathematicians and logicians that it is noteworthy in the rare cases where it is absent. I see it rarely outside of that field; in some fields, like psychology and theology, I do not see it at all. So I conclude — tentatively — that excellence in mathematics and logic promotes humility and nobility of spirit, which is the highest and most praiseworthy kind of excellence.

So, while I do not think the OP should feel guilty about not knowing those things, I also do not agree with the implication that there is nothing praiseworthy about knowing them.

[elbear]

Well, I agree with you. I think that pursuing our interests in mathematics, music, literature or whatever strikes our fancy is admirable. And I think it makes us happier, wiser and more humble as you say.

At the same time, I maintain that we shouldn't feel guilty if we aren't doing it that, for whatever reason. Sure, sometimes we actually want to pursuit some of these things, but don't. Maybe it's because we have a messy schedule, we can't organize ourselves to prioritize passions.

Feeling guilty does little to actually make you pursue your passions. You're better off learning about habits and how to pick ones that serve you.

[kragen]

Those aren't esoteric topics of applied mathematics if you're programming in Haskell or using formal methods. Moreover, some of them will improve your ability to write working Python. (The others I don't understand. Maybe they will too once I understand them.)

[bordercases]

I don't think you can be much more efficient than learning over a period of 8 years if you maintain so-called work-life balance, or being an autodidact. Remember that they have 4-year degrees for this.