54 books
—
6 voters
Programming Languages Books
Showing 1-50 of 696

by (shelved 28 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.44 — 11,196 ratings — published 1978

by (shelved 14 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.23 — 8,660 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 13 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.50 — 1,731 ratings — published

by (shelved 13 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.43 — 1,740 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 13 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.31 — 2,370 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 13 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.96 — 1,683 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 12 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.27 — 580 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 11 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.10 — 4,015 ratings — published 1986

by (shelved 8 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.70 — 417 ratings — published 2021

by (shelved 8 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.56 — 1,564 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 8 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.14 — 3,188 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.47 — 4,830 ratings — published 1984

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.35 — 2,534 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.13 — 1,662 ratings — published

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.87 — 62 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.51 — 8,033 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.10 — 3,007 ratings — published 1986

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.29 — 1,978 ratings — published 1974

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.01 — 3,189 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 6 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.96 — 148 ratings — published 1992

by (shelved 6 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.40 — 3,339 ratings — published 1991

by (shelved 6 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.07 — 3,382 ratings — published 1996

by (shelved 5 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.36 — 3,037 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 5 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.35 — 418 ratings — published 1996

by (shelved 5 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.29 — 1,073 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 5 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.60 — 85 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 5 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.99 — 356 ratings — published 1997

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.02 — 748 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.63 — 577 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.33 — 1,068 ratings — published 1995

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.23 — 988 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.67 — 33 ratings — published 1993

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.22 — 1,663 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.30 — 481 ratings — published 1993

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.94 — 942 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.96 — 1,298 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 4 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.15 — 791 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.86 — 2,228 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.28 — 3,103 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.23 — 341 ratings — published

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.16 — 179 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.55 — 1,877 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.56 — 163 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.00 — 139 ratings — published 1977

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.22 — 1,248 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.22 — 620 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.28 — 736 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.23 — 505 ratings — published

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.42 — 748 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 3 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 3.81 — 169 ratings — published 2012
Goodreads is hiring!
“When the ANSI C standard was under development, the pragma directive was introduced. Borrowed from Ada, #pragma is used to convey hints to the compiler, such as the desire to expand a particular function in-line or suppress range checks. Not previously seen in C, pragma met with some initial resistance from a gcc implementor, who took the “implementation-defined” effect very literally—in gcc version 1.34, the use of pragma causes the compiler to stop compiling and launch a computer game instead! The gcc manual contained the following: The “#pragma” command is specified in the ANSI standard to have an arbitrary implementation-defined effect. In the GNU C preprocessor, “#pragma” first attempts to run the game “rogue”; if that fails, it tries to run the game “hack”; if that fails, it tries to run GNU Emacs displaying the Tower of Hanoi; if that fails, it reports a fatal error. In any case, preprocessing does not continue. —Manual for version 1.34 of the GNU C compiler”
― Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets
― Expert C Programming: Deep C Secrets

“In languages with a garbage collector (GC), the GC keeps track and cleans up memory that isn’t being used anymore, and we don’t need to think about it. Without a GC, it’s our responsibility to identify when memory is no longer being used and call code to explicitly return it, just as we did to request it. Doing this correctly has historically been a difficult programming problem. If we forget, we’ll waste memory. If we do it too early, we’ll have an invalid variable. If we do it twice, that’s a bug too. We need to pair exactly one allocate with exactly one free.
Rust takes a different path: the memory is automatically returned once the variable that owns it goes out of scope.”
― The Rust Programming Language
Rust takes a different path: the memory is automatically returned once the variable that owns it goes out of scope.”
― The Rust Programming Language