54 books
—
6 voters
Programming Languages Books
Showing 1-50 of 697

by (shelved 28 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.44 — 11,199 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 — 1,730 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 — 1,565 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 8 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.14 — 3,189 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.47 — 4,831 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 — 1,663 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 — 8,034 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 7 times as programming-languages)
avg rating 4.10 — 3,008 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 — 3,038 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 — 578 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!

“Rust’s central feature is ownership. Although the feature is straightforward to explain, it has deep implications for the rest of the language.
All programs have to manage the way they use a computer’s memory while running. Some languages have garbage collection that constantly looks for no longer used memory as the program runs; in other languages, the programmer must explicitly allocate and free the memory. Rust uses a third approach: memory is managed through a system of ownership with a set of rules that the compiler checks at compile time. None of the ownership features slow down your program while it’s running.”
― The Rust Programming Language
All programs have to manage the way they use a computer’s memory while running. Some languages have garbage collection that constantly looks for no longer used memory as the program runs; in other languages, the programmer must explicitly allocate and free the memory. Rust uses a third approach: memory is managed through a system of ownership with a set of rules that the compiler checks at compile time. None of the ownership features slow down your program while it’s running.”
― The Rust Programming Language

“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