(Part 2) Top products from r/golang

that would be very great, but maybe it needs a pretty loooong weekend. Python Cookbook DO offers a wealth of useful code for all Python programmers.

Before rolling out personal definitions, consider reading a book.

> So what is your definition of science

"All science is either physics or stamp collecting."

> And don't tell me data mining is not seeking to explain the material universe better, that is the entire point.

Please tell me you were joking.

And no, what you describe there is not science. The theory part is just applied mathematics, rest is engineering. The heuristics used are educated guesses about the model at best.

A few kids trying to infer what kind of video I'd like to watch next, they're not doing science either.

The best book on plain C is "C: A Reference Manual" by Harbison and Steele. The K&R book is too ambiguous and out-of-date.
[See here:] (https://smile.amazon.com/Reference-Manual-Samuel-P-Harbison/dp/013089592X)

That said, Go is powerful, easy-to-learn, and easy-to-use. Highly recommended.

In addition, he co-wrote The UNIX Programming Environment and The Practice of Programming with Rob Pike and The Elements of Programming Style with PJ Plauger. I've never read the Practice of Programming (add it to the wish list) but the other two books are fantastic. The Elements of Programming Style is somewhat dated (code is in PL/I and Fortran, and it discourages things like goto which we all already know is bad) but a lot of it is still relevant and worth picking up a used copy if you can find it.

Have a look at strings.Join() for combining a slice of strings.

Programming in Go is a great book that got me started. Everything else I've picked up on has come through reading the source code of projects on GitHub. Check out awesome-go which has a bunch of cool projects and examples. Otherwise, referencing the docs and source of Go's standard packages.

It was this one:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sams-Teach-Yourself-Hours-Programming/dp/0672338033

It does have its weaknesses as well, I'd maybe give it 3.5/5? Some of its explanations of programming concepts seem a little off, or poorly explained. But if you're already a programmer and just need some way to structure covering the basics of Go, I'd say it's a decent option. Although Google's own intro tutorial is also pretty decent, and free: https://tour.golang.org/welcome/1

BTW, have you read the Feathers book on legacy code? It's pretty damn good and helped me a lot.

I'm not saying you're a bad developer. What I am saying is that Feathers is a rare genius.

edit: https://www.amazon.com/Working-Effectively-Legacy-Michael-Feathers/dp/0131177052

(There might be a newer edition)

The LISP 1.5 manual is a great example of concise tech writing, too.

https://www.amazon.com/LISP-Programmers-Manual-Michael-Levin/dp/0262130114

Best book: Computer Networking Top Down Approach: https://www.amazon.com/Computer-Networking-Top-Down-Approach-7th/dp/0133594149/?pldnSite=1
It’s not Go specific but you need to start at the fundamentals.

Good advices for code reading strategies can be found in this book http://www.amazon.com/Code-Reading-Open-Source-Perspective/dp/0201799405, not in Go however.

I had a recruiting firm send me this book. Pretty interesting.

https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Coding-Interview-Programming-Questions/dp/0984782850

The Art of Multiprocessor Programming

https://www.amazon.com/Clean-Architecture-Craftsmans-Software-Structure/dp/0134494164

You* can try this book - Distributed computing with Go.

After a brief intro into testing with Go and other such stuff, it explains how goroutines & channels work under the hood then shows how to use them. And rest of the book is about using these concepts with networking applications etc.

Jeff Atwood has a nice take on rewriting (and Joel's post): https://blog.codinghorror.com/when-understanding-means-rewriting/

>Joel thinks rewriting code is always a bad idea. I'm not so sure it's that cut and dried. According to The Universe in a Nutshell, here's what was written on Richard Feynman's blackboard at the time of his death:
>
>\> What I cannot create, I do not understand.
>
>It's not that developers want to rewrite everything; it's that very few developers are smart enough to understand code without rewriting it.