Not all of the ones below may be textbooks, sorry, but IMO they are all very good. I cut my programming teeth on some of them, and read others at different times later in my career.
How to Solve It, by Georg Polya.
A famous Hungarian mathematician.
A text on general problem solving principles or techniques. A classic.
How to Solve It by Computer, by Dromey, an AU CS professor. In the same spirit as the Polya book, but applied to iteratively working out algorithms and pseudocode for common important programming problems.
The K&R C book. What to say.
The Unix Programming Environment, by Kernighan and Pike. Ditto.
Programming Pearls, and More Programming Pearls, by Jon Bentley.
Among many other things, some clever / advanced uses of awk.
Writing Efficient Programs, also by Bentley. I had mentioned it on HN earlier, and someone replied saying they had used it in real life, and it was gold.
SQL for Professionals, by authors whose names I forget.
The Object Primer, by can't remember who, but good.
A Unix book by Kochan, IIRC.
Object-Oriented Software Construction, by Bertrand Meyer, creator of the Eiffel programming language.
A book on object-oriented analysis / design, can't remember the name, by Rebecca Wirfs-Brock (?) and others. Learned about CRC cards from it. Very cool concept and technique.
A book on Object-Oriented Design, by Grady Booch, from a time before he co-invented UML. Forget the exact name.
Sure they are common in modern English. (I only speak that version, being modern myself ;) [1]
>Is what you're talking about a bit different? Can you dive in a bit?
Sure I can. Thanks for asking.
Yes, I was talking about something different. But I seem to have been misunderstood by a few people in this subthread.
No worries, it happens. Human languages are not perfect, nor are they always unambiguous. Nor are humans perfect, in writing or interpretation. :)
I wrote the comment casually, so did not think to check how it might be understood differently by others.
When I said
>many such short forms come from or are unique to Indian English.
, I meant, first of all, just "some", because "many" does not necessarily mean "most", let alone "all". It just means "many", for some value of "many". It does not necessarily imply a comparison or relative valuation, such as, "many" relative to the total number of acronyms.
(5000 is a big number on its own, but not compared to 5 million.)
And secondly, I had first come across usage such as gf and bf in emails between Westerners and Indians known to me, some 15-odd years ago, and Indian (techie) English has many :) possibly unique acronyms such as o/p for output, i/p for input, so I thought at the time, that gf and bf might be Indian English acronyms, having not come across them in general Western English usage, at least before that.
[1] An arcane reference to an Asterix comic issue, maybe Asterix in Rome (or Italy), where they talk about learning modern languages such as Latin :)
Your second paragraph raises an interesting and seemingly valid point, but your first paragraph gets me wrong: I did mean the acronym, i.e. gf or bf (and some other such ones; not all, by a long chalk).
Anyway, thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. :)
Apropos, I've always wondered where the terms gf and bf, for girlfriend and boyfriend, came from, i.e. the West, or India. Wonder, because many such short forms come from or are unique to Indian English.
>But what do you call a new business that a founder is fully committed to (so, not a side business) but without an aim to grow to a huge valuation (just enough profit to live)?
You call it "a little Italian restaurant on the web". At least, @DHH (Rails and Basecamp founder) does:
Short compilation of his original talk, by Werner Vogels, Amazon CTO:
>Someone did the math and showed that a 10x return on those successful investments is the minimum for the fund as a whole to provide a good return for its LPs.
And they were called ten-baggers before they were called unicorns - roughly speaking.
It's been a trend for some years now (not just recently), due to reasons others here have said, such as multi-core, immutability, easier to reason about, etc. E.g. a friend of mine was in a startup that was using Clojure in production over 5-6 years ago.
Since near the dawn of computing is more like it :), but I get what you mean. There was this early language by John Backus (yes, of BNF fame) called FP (sic), though Lisp may have been the first one.
Edn. 1 is better than Edn. 2.
All, IMO.