5 ms·
I believe the word you're looking for is sisyphean, and I actually don't agree. You've yet to make the case that the fundamentals of computing science are chan
by zzalpha 11y ago
I believe the word you're looking for is sisyphean, and I actually don't agree.
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.
- mylons 11y agoyou are very correct. I've spent the last 7 years in bioinformatics doing algorithm development and it's almost entirely specialized versions of existing and established algos from decades ago.
- ethbro 11y agoYup, because the math (ironically, the part most people find most difficult about the series) doesn't change. Algorithmic complexity, number theory, set theory. These are things that show up again and again in "higher level" concepts. These are computer science books, not software engineering books.
- davidw 11y ago> documenting them is not a worthy task. Woah there! No one ever said anything about 'not worthy'. I have tremendous admiration and respect for Knuth and his work, and like you say, a lot what he's written is timeless.