TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Tech Prep by Facebook

81 点作者 fahimulhaq超过 9 年前

12 条评论

icewater超过 9 年前
For intermediate programmers they are recommending a terrible book full of fake reviews by a scammy author (I purchased the book earlier in the year and returned it). Were any of these recommendations vetted?<p>The book... <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Programming-Success-Day-Beginners-Efficient-ebook&#x2F;dp&#x2F;B00Q3Y55PM&#x2F;ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Programming-Success-Day-Beginners-Effi...</a>
评论 #10430374 未加载
评论 #10430348 未加载
sotojuan超过 9 年前
This was pretty cool and seems great for young beginners.<p>I wonder, though, what is the modern equivalent of messing with BASIC after school? It certainly isn&#x27;t Coding for Dummies is it? Would it be messing with the browser console? Messing with Python?<p>On a side note, I still think the beginning of the first SICP lecture is the best introduction to Comp Sci (I watch it to get motivated&#x2F;inspired sometimes!). What got me into Comp Sci and programming was Ableson&#x27;s quote:<p>&gt; So as opposed to other kinds of engineering, where the constraints on what you can build are the constraints of physical systems . . . the constraints imposed in building large software systems are the limitations of our own minds.<p>Just made it feel limitless, because it really can be.<p>Also I am surprised that for &quot;Expert&quot; they recommend Coursera, edX, Udacity... but no books. In my experience, most &quot;video courses&quot; tend to be aimed at beginners or intermediates, with a few awesome exceptions like the Algorithms courses in Coursera and some on edX. Still though, I believe the most interesting and &quot;Expert&quot;-level knowledge of Comp Sci and programming is in dead tree format. But I guess it&#x27;s hard to pick a few books to recommend.
评论 #10430395 未加载
评论 #10430673 未加载
评论 #10430294 未加载
评论 #10434347 未加载
评论 #10430677 未加载
评论 #10430280 未加载
anonymouscow0超过 9 年前
Given recent other posts about trying to get women and minorities in to tech the first thing I saw was the background marketing. Facebook is very good with data and I wonder if they can quantify a positive result. It felt forced, I didn&#x27;t even notice the text I just kept scrolling around looking at all the photos. I didn&#x27;t see anyone that looked like me, it all felt too social and nothing at all like programming. Not one felt cubicle, nothing I&#x27;ve seen over years of coding.<p>How did it make you feel?
评论 #10430558 未加载
评论 #10430569 未加载
评论 #10430454 未加载
superskierpat超过 9 年前
As cool as this is, It would be nice if choosing the expert path would also offer links to recommended books on programming. I&#x27;ve personally found books like sicp, the c++ programming language and etc to be the best source of programming knowledge (after an appropriate math or programming intro).<p>But it&#x27;s often pretty hard to find out which books are worth reading, of all the books that have been published in the last 30 years, are any still germaine to modern programming?<p>I tend to prefer books because just listening to a video about something does not work for me (especially when it&#x27;s just a guy talking), a book with a bunch of exercices and ideally a corriger really allows you to learn at your leasure (and are much more portable than a video on a mooc site)
gtrubetskoy超过 9 年前
I wonder why there exists &quot;computer science&quot; but not &quot;finance science&quot; or &quot;air conditioning science&quot; or &quot;automotive science&quot;. It makes me doubt that computer science is really a thing. Algorithms, logic, computation, electronics are covered by other more fundamental &quot;sciences&quot; such as mathematics, statistics, physics, etc. Is computation really justified as a scientific discipline of its own?
评论 #10430530 未加载
评论 #10430303 未加载
评论 #10430323 未加载
评论 #10430330 未加载
评论 #10430505 未加载
评论 #10430781 未加载
laurentoget超过 9 年前
I wish they had involved ACM and IEEE in it instead of doing their own thing.
k_bx超过 9 年前
Isn&#x27;t that.. awful?<p>Computer science is not about computers, it&#x27;s not about code either. It&#x27;s about ideas! Ideas, related to computations.<p>Here is a great Ted-talk from Simon Peyton Jones that explains this very well <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Ia55clAtdMs" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=Ia55clAtdMs</a>
lsiebert超过 9 年前
There is something weird about saying 18-25+.
pboutros超过 9 年前
Interesting that it&#x27;s tied in with McKinsey &amp; Co.<p>Without having dug into it much, I quite like it. There are definitely a lot of resources out there to learn, and - regardless of how true it is - feeling like a resource is the _right_ one for you probably helps.
saurabhjha超过 9 年前
That&#x27;s really cool.
outliers超过 9 年前
Why do they have to make these videos so cheesy.
throwitallaway1超过 9 年前
With Facebook&#x27;s Tech Prep, you too can create shiny monstrosities that chug while trying to scroll on an i7 with the very latest JS engine!<p>It&#x27;s tied in with McKinsey because they hate programmers. They hate the fact that the firms they&#x27;re raiding and &quot;advising&quot; are currently having to pay people a living wage to build and fix their systems. They want to flood the market with a bunch of cheap framework cut-and-paste developers and flood the culture with a bunch of inch-deep strivers [1]. Meanwhile, the McKinsey always-be-closing Powerpoint jockeys will bring the &quot;real ideas&quot;. Does somebody have to keep bringing this up every time one of these &quot;get people who never bothered to understand programming on their own to understand programming&quot; articles gets posted?<p>[1] Disclaimer: I am merely foot-deep.
评论 #10430391 未加载
评论 #10430776 未加载