61–70 of 141 posts
> based on its stellar reputation as one of the indispensible, foundational computer science books that every programmer should read. A while back, I was joking with some friends that TAoCP is to the programming world what Finnegans Wake is to English literature: you're not supposed to read it, nobody's ever actually read it. We all just say we've read it, talk about how brilliant it is, and place it prominently on o…
You are not supposed to read about any algorithm. There is nothing special about knowing how some sorting algorithm works, or any algorithm for that matter. That knowledge is no better than knowing how some war in history happened. Or remembering arcane trivial about things. Knowing how to sort a list a dozen ways, no big deal. Unless you discovered the algorithms yourself, there is nothing special about just knowing how these things work.
You are supposed to learn how to discover your own algorithms, reasoning from the first principles, learning the axioms that govern the area of the problem, learn the rules, then work out step by the step, deriving new results from the results discovered a step back.
You are supposed to learn how to reason about the problem. You are supposed to learn to understand the problem, state it in simple terms, learn to draw diagrams to represent it, solve sub problems. Build theories, hypothesis, question them, prove them etc.
We don't do algorithm studies the right way.
Even software interviews are not testing algorithm skills, they are testing algorithm memorization skills. Nothing different than those teachers who used to confuse memorizing multiplication tables with genius.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In truth, if you haven't actually read Finnegans Wake, you've missed a grand literary experience.
In truth it is an extremely difficult book to read due to its experimental writing style. See for yourself: https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/j/joyce/james/j8f/complete.ht...
The explanation is golden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnegans_Wake
"Despite the obstacles, readers and commentators have reached a broad consensus about the book's central cast of characters and, to a lesser degree, its plot. However, a number of key details remain elusive.[6][7]"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "but even just looking at actual computer science stuff, the field is expanding rapidly." Is it though? Hash tables - 1953, Red-Black trees 1972, Quicksort 1959, etc...
Look at Knuth's future book plans, and consider all the things he's not putting in them that are current. He's also revisited the books some, and plans to do so again in the future. I don't mean to take away from the books - they're beautiful and full of a lot of timeless knowledge. There's just something that seems a bit ... I can't even find a word for it ... about the endeavor.
TAOCP is not only hyper-focused, obsessive, bloated, difficult, and outdated, but also genius and foundational and connected to everything.
Kind of like TeX and Metafont.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "but even just looking at actual computer science stuff, the field is expanding rapidly." Is it though? Hash tables - 1953, Red-Black trees 1972, Quicksort 1959, etc...
Look at Knuth's future book plans, and consider all the things he's not putting in them that are current. He's also revisited the books some, and plans to do so again in the future. I don't mean to take away from the books - they're beautiful and full of a lot of timeless knowledge. There's just something that seems a bit ... I can't even find a word for it ... about the endeavor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "It's a pleasure to meet you, Professor Knuth," Steve [Jobs] said. "I've read all of your books." > "You're full of shit," Knuth responded. ( http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=Close_Encounters_... ) Yes, now we know that this never happened, but I like to think it did.
He could respond that way to everyone. In every full set of TAOCP, there is a sentence that reads "If you have read this far, mail this string to the author to collect $25." The sentence is followed by a 10 character alphanumeric string. The string and placement of this sentence is randomized: different in every set. To this day only 3 people have collected their checks. All three have them framed on their walls.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "but even just looking at actual computer science stuff, the field is expanding rapidly." Is it though? Hash tables - 1953, Red-Black trees 1972, Quicksort 1959, etc...
Look at Knuth's future book plans, and consider all the things he's not putting in them that are current. He's also revisited the books some, and plans to do so again in the future. I don't mean to take away from the books - they're beautiful and full of a lot of timeless knowledge. There's just something that seems a bit ... I can't even find a word for it ... about the endeavor.
You've yet to make the case that the fundamentals of computing science are changing so much that documenting them is not a worthy task.
Again, basic algorithms and data structures simply have not changed. Their performance characteristics, methods for optimal implementation, etc, certainly have as computer architectures have evolved (think reordering CPUs, multi-level caches, changes to data storage technology, etc). But the basic algorithms remain the same. Quicksort is still quicksort.
It's true that over the last decade some new concepts have reached a new prominence (e.g., lock-free data structures), but those are additions to the field. They certainly don't invalidate the basics.