Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#131

Post by engi_nerd »

noir_lord wrote: post #75
SFjulie1 wrote: post #49

Do you need to people to tell you what to do? Asking other's advice is as stupid as judging a book by its cover. If you have studied a tad, or read books in the past, there are ways to efficiently evaluate a book: Read some pages randomly. Think 30s if you liked it. TAOCP is indigest for sure. Then take a topic for which its relevant. Read it. Did you learnt something? A) no, either you or him is an idiot. Go to B) B…

> Do you need to people to tell you what to do? No but if I want advice on building a wall and I'm not a builder I might ask one. If I want advice on how to make bread I'd ask a baker. There is nothing wrong with asking more knowledgeable people for advice, in fact the inverse, I've learnt skills in my life the brute force way by trial and error where just been able to ask someone who'd done it for advice would have…

The two easiest ways to learn how to solve a problem: looking at a system that does exactly what you want and copying it shamelessly, and asking someone who has already done what you're trying to do how they did it.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#132

Post by SFjulie1 »

tdsamardzhiev wrote: post #100
SFjulie1 wrote: post #49

Do you need to people to tell you what to do? Asking other's advice is as stupid as judging a book by its cover. If you have studied a tad, or read books in the past, there are ways to efficiently evaluate a book: Read some pages randomly. Think 30s if you liked it. TAOCP is indigest for sure. Then take a topic for which its relevant. Read it. Did you learnt something? A) no, either you or him is an idiot. Go to B) B…

Funny how you tell him he doesn't need other people to tell him what to do, and then you tell him what to do :)

I give him a methodology that seems to have been lacking in his education. Not the conclusion he should reach.

Maybe because I have a lutherian culture based on the belief that critical reading is the only way to improve the world and avoid the ravage of superstition? (Yes, the first act of faith of a lutherian is read the bible with a critical eye and refusing the interpretation of experts (called authority), but to accept discussion of other critical open readers on an equal foot based on experience).

Maybe I come from a family that knows better than none the effect of people the importance of books as long as they are read critically. Maybe, because my family is on the run since 4 centuries from various places/religions/situations around the world.

Monoculture is bad. Consensus is dangerous.

Basically I resent bigots from all schools of thinking.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#133

Post by pakled_engineer »

I use TAOCP on a regular basis where I work, I started writing DSLs for industrial systems then learned from TAOCP how to optimize memory of these embedded systems. We leaf through the pages whenever we can and always find something relevant to what we're working on. We also used just a few LOC for hand rolled Knuth in a customer app field engineers use to quickly find documentation that is so fast and accurate we get offers to buy it. As a result these corps all keep their ancient embedded systems that would cost multi millions to replace as we keep making them faster and more reliable.

Knuth is also a fan of abstracted programming languages like Literate programming which he claims without it he wouldn't have been able to create a lot of the exercises in recent TAOCP volumes so anybody declaring that if you're "just" a Java programmer you won't get any use out of the books are likely incorrect.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#134

Post by S4M »

agumonkey wrote: post #50
rubiquity wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamentals of computation remain the same.

Sometimes I believe it strongly, sometimes I don't. Do deep fundamental, mathematical analysis help in the accidental social complexity found on programming stacks sometimes ?

Last time realized that basic algebra (equivalence relation and classes) were helping me to solve a concrete programming problem I was having (having something to do with syntactic trees). It was a big surprise to me. Equivalence relations are a simple concept [0], and maybe my problem could have been solved without thinking of it, but still, some fundamental math helped me for my problem, and I was stunned by that.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_relation

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#135

Post by School-Cotton »

Analemma_ wrote: post #7

> 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…

James Joyce would probably not have taken kindly to being called "English"

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#136

Post by romanhn »

TurboHaskal wrote: post #125
Analemma_ wrote: post #7

> 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…

I highly doubt people making all these lists recommending SICP, Code Complete and the dragon book have read those either.

SICP and the dragon book were both part of my CS curriculum. I read Code Complete as a mid-level engineer and found it quite useful. It would not surprise me that many others have done so as well.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#137

Post by kjs3 »

pajop wrote: post #112
kjs3 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kinda important to note here that the "M50" designation indicates that the excercise is an "unsolved research problem". It's not an in-joke; Knuth is presenting unsolved problems with the intention that the student would consider trying solving them.

btw, if you didn't find an in-joke [1] funny [2][3][4][5] then it's probably because of a very good reason :) Knuth himself found it funny [6] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-joke [2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.folklore.compute... [3] https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/38gt65/was... [4] http://texthook.com/blog/2013/07/01/reading-knuth/ [5] http://tal.forum2.org/story_45 [6] http:…

You're of course right; I should have considered my response more. I suppose it would be more accurate to say the M50 problems are not only an in-joke in the sense that one always hopes for a George Dantzig moment. But clearly the inclusion of something like FLT has to be done with a at least a little chuckle from the author.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#138

Post by agumonkey »

S4M wrote: post #134
agumonkey wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I believe it strongly, sometimes I don't. Do deep fundamental, mathematical analysis help in the accidental social complexity found on programming stacks sometimes ?

Last time realized that basic algebra (equivalence relation and classes) were helping me to solve a concrete programming problem I was having (having something to do with syntactic trees). It was a big surprise to me. Equivalence relations are a simple concept [0], and maybe my problem could have been solved without thinking of it, but still, some fundamental math helped me for my problem, and I was stunned by that.…

I believe this kind of problems are already far away from most people's job and one foot in the math side of programming.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#139

Post by agumonkey »

S4M wrote: post #134
agumonkey wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sometimes I believe it strongly, sometimes I don't. Do deep fundamental, mathematical analysis help in the accidental social complexity found on programming stacks sometimes ?

Last time realized that basic algebra (equivalence relation and classes) were helping me to solve a concrete programming problem I was having (having something to do with syntactic trees). It was a big surprise to me. Equivalence relations are a simple concept [0], and maybe my problem could have been solved without thinking of it, but still, some fundamental math helped me for my problem, and I was stunned by that.…

Also, I didn't want to diminish your point. When you understand the value of mathematical abstractions for any kind of tasks it's a bliss.

Re: Ask HN: Is Knuth's TAOCP worth the time and effort?

#140

Post by S4M »

agumonkey wrote: post #139
S4M wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time realized that basic algebra (equivalence relation and classes) were helping me to solve a concrete programming problem I was having (having something to do with syntactic trees). It was a big surprise to me. Equivalence relations are a simple concept [0], and maybe my problem could have been solved without thinking of it, but still, some fundamental math helped me for my problem, and I was stunned by that.…

Also, I didn't want to diminish your point. When you understand the value of mathematical abstractions for any kind of tasks it's a bliss.

In fact those situations are pretty rare, it was the first time it happened to me that a mathematical concept helped me to understand how to write a certain algorithm that isn't specifically mathy (as opposite to implement something purely math related), so I would that, sadly, your previous comment is on the point.
Post reply on HN