chicago-ug-math-bib VS derpy

There's also Chicago Undergraduate Mathematics Bibliography, which has a slightly more updated version here.

It might happen with a book that we liked whoever reccommended the book or the way he typed the review or whatever, or it might happen that the book has more illustrations, or a better typography. I remember while an undergrad consulting the frequently linked chicago undergraduates math library and asking myself what typography had to do with whether a book is good or not. Being wary that all these things might affect how we perceive the book unconsciously is important. We might try to deflect guilt on a book, and say that the exposition is unclear, when in reality what makes us incomfortable is the ty pography but we havent realised or just dont want to admit it.

For those of you interested in the Chicago approach, a bibliography of textbooks used in Chicago UGrad math is maintained here:

https://github.com/ystael/chicago-ug-math-bib

A similar resource is this one. Note that some of the recommended books might be graduate books or too advanced for a first encounter.

This is one of the best lists I have found : https://github.com/ystael/chicago-ug-math-bib

Do you know about stackoverflow, https://math.stackexchange.com/, and mathoverflow? What about the chicago undergraduate mathematics bibliography? Do you know where to find textbooks online (legally of course!!)?

There's also an algorithm that can parse using derivatives. These are not derivatives in the calculus sense, but they're an algebraic operation you can do to parsers that closely resembles the traditional derivative. You use it to build up a parser in a way that's short and elegant. There's a python implementation here. The original author blogs about it here. There is also a paper they published that uses Racket.