I going to come across as defensive here, but I'm actually in a Computer Engineering program (not Computer Science). This book purports to cover as much material as 8 undergrad courses, I feel like it must skimp on depth to (for example) condense all of 'compilers' into two weeks. Compilers are a very large topic, a single undergrad course isn't even sufficient to really understand a real world project like GCC. Likewise, 'computer architecture' makes up three classes in my curriculum: one all about building RISC processors, another about CISC, then a third about modern architectures. Only in the last one do you approach an understanding of a contemporary CPU architecture.
My question for people who have done the course is: does it cover even simple design theory like K-maps? Does it make you account for propagation delay? Does it explain caching schemes and TLBs? I feel like it probably has to gloss over a lot of the 'hard stuff' to remain so dense.
Likewise, it sounds like it's all done in custom languages. Half of my first year was spent struggling with industry standard, terrible software like Altera which is super powerful but terribly designed. The other half was spent actually breadboarding circuits and having them fail because of problems you never see in simulations (or which they solve for you).
I'm not saying it's not an interesting project, but it really is a nice, abstract diversion for people who work on software all day. People calling for it to be included in comp. eng. programs probably don't realize the depth of what actually gets covered in comp eng.
Edit: to sound a bit less whiny, if anyone is doing this course and they want to dig deeper into a particular area, I'd be happy to point them to the books/course materials we used.
My question for people who have done the course is: does it cover even simple design theory like K-maps? Does it make you account for propagation delay? Does it explain caching schemes and TLBs? I feel like it probably has to gloss over a lot of the 'hard stuff' to remain so dense.
Likewise, it sounds like it's all done in custom languages. Half of my first year was spent struggling with industry standard, terrible software like Altera which is super powerful but terribly designed. The other half was spent actually breadboarding circuits and having them fail because of problems you never see in simulations (or which they solve for you).
I'm not saying it's not an interesting project, but it really is a nice, abstract diversion for people who work on software all day. People calling for it to be included in comp. eng. programs probably don't realize the depth of what actually gets covered in comp eng.
Edit: to sound a bit less whiny, if anyone is doing this course and they want to dig deeper into a particular area, I'd be happy to point them to the books/course materials we used.