Software Internals Book Club

ryanar 6 days ago |

This is so neat, as Phil mentioned in the How to run a software bookclub post, out of a group of 500, only 1-2%, 5-10 people may contribute with comments. But he lets the group grow in size because it is minimal overhead and many "lurkers" say they really appreciate reading the comments and get a lot out of it.

I am left wondering is there any way to see past comments on book discussions? I would love to read the discussions as I go through a book already done by the club on my own.

eatonphil 5 days ago | |

I keep thinking about doing future ones semi-public (need to sign up to be allowed to post) but I already spend more time on the book club than I particularly want to so I mostly just keep doing the same thing which works fine enough. It's also not unlikely we'd repeat a book in a few years (for example we'll read DDIAv2 probably next year). So for now, join the mailing list and new readings as they happen.

flumpcakes 5 days ago | |

I've tried many times to sign up but never got in/received an email - I'd like to join, even as a "lurker".

tolerance 6 days ago |

People like me may be more interested in this blog post:

https://notes.eatonphil.com/2024-05-30-how-i-run-book-clubs....

clumsysmurf 6 days ago |

"High Performance Browser Networking"

I wish there was an update to this book, reading it a while back I think it covered some proposed HTTP/2 features but definitely not HTTP/3.

Many of the issues discussed had to do with TCP itself.

eatonphil 5 days ago | |

Me too. Everyone should email O'Reilly.

ungut 6 days ago |

Lol, requires LinkedIn and can't parse valid email addresses. This is what senior+ software development looks like.

sudb 6 days ago | |

Famously valid email address parsing is far from trivial[1] - I wouldn't be so quick to judge!

1. https://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html

nagaiaida 5 days ago | | |

that's an excellent reason why one shouldn't validate emails by parsing, not an excuse for barring valid emails through poorly implemented validation

sudb 5 days ago | | |

sure, but I was replying to a complaint about failure to parse, not existence of parsing

isn't the real pragmatic answer to parse out known invalid email address strings, and only attempt to deliver an email if unsure?

bobbiechen 5 days ago | | |

Sending emails that bounce is a really good way to increase the chance that your subsequent emails end up in spam.

xboxnolifes 5 days ago | | |

not parsing is a form of parsing... you're just accepting everything.

Insimwytim 5 days ago | |

It requires javascript as well.

ozgrakkurt 6 days ago |

It looks amazing as a reading list. I am also reading the OS book by Tanenbaum since the three piece book got very boring after a bit of reading

sdevonoes 6 days ago | |

Weird. I got bored with the Tanenbaum books (because they are very abstract and theoretical). The 3 piece book OS was very refreshing and I actually learned stuff

eatonphil 5 days ago | | |

Agreed.

ofrzeta 6 days ago | |

The Stallings book is very good.

ozgrakkurt 6 days ago | | |

I found it mentions too many out of context things. I’m not in a position to judge if it is technically good

vjay15 6 days ago | |

I remember reading Tanenbaum, the dino book right? It is amazing

ozgrakkurt 6 days ago | | |

Dino book is written by someone else. Also found that one boring

Metaluim 5 days ago |

It's funny - I was just thinking about your book club earlier this morning. Found some good recommendations over there!

globalnode 6 days ago |

I would love to see a maths version of this bookclub

vismit2000 5 days ago | |

Take a look at resources here: https://momath.org, specifically Best of Volumes Book Club https://momath.org/volumes/best-of/

adangit 5 days ago |

Who's starting a monthly HN: Book Club?

rdevilla 6 days ago |

This is great. I sort of feel a lack of fora for discussing technical books over a longer lifetime than merely say, the HN front page.

While there is a very good selection of readings, it's unfortunate that both LinkedIn and Google are being used here, especially if the discussion is text-only.

LPisGood 6 days ago |

Well I don’t have Linkedin so that’s a shame. The idea is very good.

simonw 6 days ago | |

I expect if you use www.linkedin.com/i-do-not-have-linkedin as the URL Phil will let you in anyway.

LPisGood 6 days ago | | |

I wonder if someone could be arrested for gaining unauthorized access to a computer system via fraud under US law for doing that.

ornornor 6 days ago | | |

What? How?

tardedmeme 6 days ago | | |

The computer fraud and abuse act is extremely broad to the point of absurdity.

ndneighbor 6 days ago | | |

confirmed

(I help host nycsystems w/ Phil- we don't mind, just an easier way to know who is who other than email)

jruohonen 6 days ago | |

My sentiment too: a nice idea worth supporting but the execution has something to improve. In addition to LinkedIn:

   "All discussion is via a Google Group."

eatonphil 5 days ago | | |

If you start one your own way and you read interesting books I will happily tell people about yours. :)