Studying Learn how to program by picking up a few books

  • Thread starter Thread starter cordyceps
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Books Program
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the effectiveness of learning programming and CAD through self-study versus formal courses. Many participants argue that self-study, particularly through hands-on projects and online resources, can be more beneficial and cost-effective than traditional classes. They emphasize that popular programming languages have extensive online support, reducing the need for books. However, some acknowledge that formal courses can provide structured learning, especially for beginners who may lack prior experience or mentorship. The conversation also touches on the importance of understanding foundational concepts in CAD, such as drafting principles, which can be better grasped in a classroom setting. Ultimately, the choice between self-study and formal education depends on individual learning styles and goals, with online forums now serving as valuable resources for guidance and support.
cordyceps
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Hey guys,

I was just wondering... is it easier to learn how to program by picking up a few books or by taking courses on the subject? If it's easier to learn through self-study, then I probably won't sign up for any programming classes next year. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Personally, I think programming classes are a waste of time and money. Same goes for CAD classes as well. I learn best from just diving right in with a project and learning what I need along the way. Most popular languages are very well supported and you won't even need (or want) any books.
 


I'm of the opinion that if you have zero programming experience, formal programming courses can be a good way of getting into the subject matter and learning the tool chain (especially if you don't have any / lots of programmer friends). The programming assignments (often trivial to those who programming experience) also give you something to learn with.

I also think that an introductory drafting (and not necessarily CAD, even though that's what everybody uses) is good for introducing the technicals of, well, technical drawing (how things should look like, why you need drawings in the first place, and why they're used). Good for forcing you to use your visualization abilities.

...But that's just my opinion. And really, it comes down to what kind of learner (or thinker) you are, and whether or not you need to take one or both of the above as part of course requirements (and whether or not you need these for further courses). If you're good at teaching yourself to do something (from scratch) from a book, that's probably the way to go. If not, the course route might not be such a bad idea.
 


If all you want to know how to do is to program casually and hack out a few easy programs using cookbook algorithms and copy-and-paste, all you need is a book and a few hours.

If you want to learn how to write good software and understand what you're doing (and not just develop muscle memory for doing it when you need to) then you will probably need some guidance.

I suppose, in theory, that anything that can be learned can be learned without help.
 


For CAD there are 2 basic things to learn. First is the principles of drafting and design, which a class will help with. The second is getting accustomed to working in 3D on a computer, which is effectively learned through spending time building 3D models, whether for a class or not.

Classes offer a good opportunity to ask questions you have, but this function can now be achieved as well or better through asking questions on forums. In 3D art and animation, which is similar but considerably more difficult than parametric CAD, virtually all current professionals in industry started out as teenagers making models for fun, reading online tutorials in place of books, and using online forums for help and critique of their work.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
71
Views
731
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top