61–70 of 171 posts
One of my favorite facts about Knuth is how rarely he checks email! https://www.calnewport.com/blog/2008/07/17/bonus-post-how-th...
[1]: https://youtube.com/watch?v=XDTOs8MgQfg
[2]: https://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2213858&WT....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Donald Knuth interviews are so interesting, but would like to particularly highlight this little piece of advice, out of this great playlist: "Donald Knuth - My advice to young people": https://youtu.be/75Ju0eM5T2c Complete Playlist - "Donald Knuth (Computer scientist)" [97 videos]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVV0r6CmEsFzeNLngr1Jq... Also the "Oral History of Donald Knuth" from the Computer History Museum…
There's one interview where he talks about a special sofa that he uses to read (and write, I believe), but I haven't been able to find it with all my Google-fu.
"Donald Knuth: Writing Process": https://youtu.be/vG0D-kKTF1g
I still read TAOCP, particularly vol 4, for fun from time to time, but I have to admit that the days are long gone when an ordinary engineer needs to study algorithms in depth. The vast number of libraries and services are good enough that most people just need to know a few terms to function adequately for their jobs. I guess it's a good thing as it shows how robust the software abstractions are, in contrast to math…
There will always be a "higher" type of engineers who want to read TAOCP and similar. My issue with the books is that they're actually quite long winded even by what you'd expect from the tone. There's some really cool stuff in them, obviously, but I think they're objectively not very good textbooks for any purpose. Then again I'm coming from a background of physics rather than mathematics so I'm not set out for a re…
It’s a good short story if you’ve got 20min.
I still read TAOCP, particularly vol 4, for fun from time to time, but I have to admit that the days are long gone when an ordinary engineer needs to study algorithms in depth. The vast number of libraries and services are good enough that most people just need to know a few terms to function adequately for their jobs. I guess it's a good thing as it shows how robust the software abstractions are, in contrast to math…
There will always be a "higher" type of engineers who want to read TAOCP and similar. My issue with the books is that they're actually quite long winded even by what you'd expect from the tone. There's some really cool stuff in them, obviously, but I think they're objectively not very good textbooks for any purpose. Then again I'm coming from a background of physics rather than mathematics so I'm not set out for a re…
I find the MMIX code less relevant to my line of work now as getting down to machine-level optimization requires a whole new different suite of tools. The ensuing optimizations on modern CPUs seem deviated from what the MMIX code can help.
I still read TAOCP, particularly vol 4, for fun from time to time, but I have to admit that the days are long gone when an ordinary engineer needs to study algorithms in depth. The vast number of libraries and services are good enough that most people just need to know a few terms to function adequately for their jobs. I guess it's a good thing as it shows how robust the software abstractions are, in contrast to math…
There will always be a "higher" type of engineers who want to read TAOCP and similar. My issue with the books is that they're actually quite long winded even by what you'd expect from the tone. There's some really cool stuff in them, obviously, but I think they're objectively not very good textbooks for any purpose. Then again I'm coming from a background of physics rather than mathematics so I'm not set out for a re…
Knuth's a good, engaging writer, but TAOCP's content and typography are definitely better thought out than the prose.
EDIT: Just remembered a BBC interview with a philosophy professor about Kant. Apparently Kant is criticized for being really verbose. The professor's retort was he sensed Kant had so much to say and so little time to say it that he didn't edit very carefully, giving it a similar kind of bloated, meandering quality. Even so, Kant is held up as one of the GOATs, because in the end it's the content that counts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Algebra goes so much deeper than this. I had so much trouble with my compilers class because my professor expressed all the ideas and principles of compilation using algebra. So I second OP's comment - I wish there were a course one could take on algebra itself - not merely numeric expressions with variables.
> I wish there were a course one could take on algebra itself Depending a little on just what you mean, that's likely the upper-division undergraduate math department course called "Algebra" at most universities. Groups and rings and such.
And be careful what you wish for - the way eighth-grade algebra hurt your brain when you were 13 will be nothing compared to the way abstract algebra will hurt your brain when you're 20.
> Recently, I came across a few old and new interviews of Donald Knuth I have developed the conclusion that reading digestive summary from original source materials is ultimately ineffective for me at this stage of the life. Unfortunately, the author did not provide links to these interviews. For anyone who is writing a summary from other source material, please do provide references. That's one of the things I learn…
Ironically, a significant portion of Knuth's lifetime work consists of digested summaries of original source materials.
> Recently, I came across a few old and new interviews of Donald Knuth I have developed the conclusion that reading digestive summary from original source materials is ultimately ineffective for me at this stage of the life. Unfortunately, the author did not provide links to these interviews. For anyone who is writing a summary from other source material, please do provide references. That's one of the things I learn…
Ironically, a significant portion of Knuth's lifetime work consists of digested summaries of original source materials.
I still read TAOCP, particularly vol 4, for fun from time to time, but I have to admit that the days are long gone when an ordinary engineer needs to study algorithms in depth. The vast number of libraries and services are good enough that most people just need to know a few terms to function adequately for their jobs. I guess it's a good thing as it shows how robust the software abstractions are, in contrast to math…