Talk:The Pragmatic Programmer

I think the information is wrong. This book isn't copyright The Pragmatic Programmers, it's published by Addison Wesley. After Pp was written, then the Prags went off and started writing and publishing their own books.

Fair use rationale for Image:The pragmatic programmer.jpg

Image:The pragmatic programmer.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN?

In the List of group-0 ISBN publisher codes there is a ISBN group number 9776166 assigned for "The Pragmatic Programmer" that links to here. But here there is an ISBN 0-201-xxx given which is assigned to Addison Wesley. Why the difference? --RokerHRO (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the section for "Series"

It's not clear to me that listing the series of other books from the "Pragmatic Bookshelf" really belongs in this article. It seems like an advertisement for the other books. People who like the first book and want more are perfectly capable of using google. Deleted. superbatfish (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ERRATA

First discussed, in C/C+ Users Journal (Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 31 May 2016. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/C%2B%2B_Users_Journal>) as the journeyman ins and outs of modules and discussing the environment of DLLs, static and loading. It has been confused with Ruby. The Delphi or COM object programming in compilers and enablers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.217.218 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Proposal

The result of this discussion is not merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I propose that Kata (programming) be merged into The Pragmatic Programmer. The code katas article is short and not very notable but it's an important part of the book. --OMouse (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While said book seems to have coined the term, the idea of code katas has evolved. Currently I'd consider it to be something independent that slowly picks up pace. It is a means for former programmers to retain some of their original skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.147.66.240 (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm voting to keeping Kata seperate, since it's small but discrete topic in it's own right Duncan.Hull (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also vote to keep Kata seperate as it is it's own concept and therefore I think people will search for the term without any knowledge of its existence in any other print WatkinsDev (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussion has little evolved since 2014, and that I agree that this should be separated, (because the two subject are widely different and deserve their own article) I remove the merge proposition. Xavier Combelle (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deserves own article?

Is this book really so influential or important that it deserves an entire (though small) article? Drpixie (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It apparently coined the pretty well-known term 'rubber duck debugging'. Radiodef (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Drpixie for what it worth, it is regularly quote as one of the best book to read for a programmer (in my professional opinion rightly so). so it can be think as important. Xavier Combelle (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Dave Thomas (programmer)

The result of this discussion is no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

unnecessary Light2021 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Two times suggested for merge. 1 Line Article to merge is bad decision? Ignored without even taking participation. Please explain!Light2021 (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above was for a different article. Regarding this discussion, 30 days have passed with no other participation. As such, no consensus exists. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]