I think it's just different learning styles. My preference for learning e.g. a new programming language has always been to read a book cover to cover as the first step (if it's a language established enough to have a book anyway). Note that it's not important that I actually understand everything on this first pass. The cover to cover is mostly about getting the lay of the land so I know what exists, then, even years later when I have a problem that could be solved by using some bit of the language that I read about but didn't really understand but vaguely recall is a thing it springs to mind and I can do my deep dive on that aspect then.
pxc|2 years ago
It's only on the second pass that I am trying to go through each section carefully and make sure I really understand before moving on, including seeking outside help or resources if I feel confused or stuck.
This feels fun for me, and the casual first pass makes it easy to figure out if a book or language truly appeals to me.
I also feel, strange as it sounds, like for me it save time compared to learning in small increments through tutorials. It lets me more quickly absorb the basics for things that are already more or less familiar, and then I can focus on exercises and examples only for the tricky stuff.
When I first started studying computer science, in high school, the biggest productivity gap was between the students who tried to work only with what they were directly taught in class by the teacher and the students who decided to go explore the language/stdlib API docs on their own. There was a lot of 'wow, how did you do that!?' from the former group and a lot of 'it's built in, check out this part of the manual' in response from the latter. But somehow no amount of exchanges like that could convince the former group to take some time to RTFM in a comprehensive or unguided way, so it stayed that way.