3 ms·

He praises almost all of the books on the second list, he just thinks a large percentage of the people that recommend them haven't read much of them. He also d

by phaus 10y ago

He praises almost all of the books on the second list, he just thinks a large percentage of the people that recommend them haven't read much of them. He also doesn't seem to make the claim that the first list represents "canon" and that the second list represents "non-canon". The first list is a list of great books that are easily understood by most students. Many of the books on the second list are far more advanced. I agree that some students can learn using any of these resources. However, most people would struggle with books like TAOCP.

nanolith 10y ago
He gives some rather backhanded praise for TAOCP, if you can consider noting that a set of books look impressive on a bookshelf as praise. For instance, "I've used my set several times when I was stuck and couldn't find help anywhere else. But TAOCP is always my reference of last resort. It's very dense and academic, and the examples are all in assembly language." He insinuates pretty strongly that the first set of books is the canonical set with this statement: "If you're interested enough in programming that you're reading this blog, you've probably read most, if not all of the books in this list, so I won't spend time reviewing each one individually." While not being explicit, he's being pretty implicit regarding his judgement of value for these books. I don't necessarily agree that TAOCP is especially difficult, but I did say in my original comment above that TAOCP is not for every student. For the right student, working on the right set of problems, I would not hesitate to recommend TAOCP.
- phaus 10y ago
  You only mentioned the parts of his statement about TAOCP that, when taken out of context, seem to prove your point. He did note that it looks impressive on a shelf, but he also followed it up with "and it is impressive." Furthermore, he goes on to state that it is so comprehensive that if you have a computer science problem that falls in a category covered by one of the published volumes of TAOCP, and you cannot find a solution in TAOCP, that a solution likely does not exist. That's pretty high praise IMO. >It's very dense and academic. Is it not a dense text written in an academic style by an academic known for dense, academic writing? Its likely the greatest reference in existence, but it isn't an easy book to read at all. If it doesn't seem like a challenging read to you, then as the author already stated, you aren't one of the people that he was talking about. >He insinuates pretty strongly that the first set of books is the canonical set with this statement: "If you're interested enough in programming that you're reading this blog, you've probably read most, if not all of the books in this list, so I won't spend time reviewing each one individually." IMO, his statement doesn't attempt to canonize them at all. If you look at both lists, one list is obviously far more accessible to the average programmer than the other list. It doesn't make them better, just suitable for different people. >For the right student, working on the right set of problems, I would not hesitate to recommend TAOCP. I'm not saying that you're wrong. However, the article is about books that are often recommended to beginners. Most people will struggle if they start with TAOCP.
  - pvg 10y ago
    Is it not a dense text written in an academic style by an academic known for dense, academic writing? It's not. It's much more mathematical than your typical programming book and it might not be suitable for beginners (it says so itself) but that's not because it's 'dense and academic'. It comes with exercises, historical asides, nerdy jokes and so on.
- jwdunne 10y ago
  You're missing the point. He isn't saying the books are crap, not even TAOCP. He is saying lots of programmers suggest they have read them when really they haven't. You see some of these books suggested to novices. Is TAOCP really the best book for someone just getting started on their first program?
- DanBC 10y ago
  > > For instance, "I've used my set several times when I was stuck and couldn't find help anywhere else. But TAOCP is always my reference of last resort. It's very dense and academic, and the examples are all in assembly language." Isn't that just agreeing with your point here: > Knuth is an excellent teacher for the right sort of student. He's not for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that.
caretStick 10y ago
> he just thinks a large percentage of the people that recommend them haven't read much of them. Donald Trump just thinks a lot of things. The author never made a valid argument, but lot of people up-voted, an indicator of the growing friction between the plutocrats and the plebeians.

by phaus 10y ago

nanolith 10y ago

He gives some rather backhanded praise for TAOCP, if you can consider noting that a set of books look impressive on a bookshelf as praise. For instance, "I've used my set several times when I was stuck and couldn't find help anywhere else. But TAOCP is always my reference of last resort. It's very dense and academic, and the examples are all in assembly language." He insinuates pretty strongly that the first set of books is the canonical set with this statement: "If you're interested enough in programming that you're reading this blog, you've probably read most, if not all of the books in this list, so I won't spend time reviewing each one individually." While not being explicit, he's being pretty implicit regarding his judgement of value for these books. I don't necessarily agree that TAOCP is especially difficult, but I did say in my original comment above that TAOCP is not for every student. For the right student, working on the right set of problems, I would not hesitate to recommend TAOCP.

phaus 10y ago
You only mentioned the parts of his statement about TAOCP that, when taken out of context, seem to prove your point. He did note that it looks impressive on a shelf, but he also followed it up with "and it is impressive." Furthermore, he goes on to state that it is so comprehensive that if you have a computer science problem that falls in a category covered by one of the published volumes of TAOCP, and you cannot find a solution in TAOCP, that a solution likely does not exist. That's pretty high praise IMO. >It's very dense and academic. Is it not a dense text written in an academic style by an academic known for dense, academic writing? Its likely the greatest reference in existence, but it isn't an easy book to read at all. If it doesn't seem like a challenging read to you, then as the author already stated, you aren't one of the people that he was talking about. >He insinuates pretty strongly that the first set of books is the canonical set with this statement: "If you're interested enough in programming that you're reading this blog, you've probably read most, if not all of the books in this list, so I won't spend time reviewing each one individually." IMO, his statement doesn't attempt to canonize them at all. If you look at both lists, one list is obviously far more accessible to the average programmer than the other list. It doesn't make them better, just suitable for different people. >For the right student, working on the right set of problems, I would not hesitate to recommend TAOCP. I'm not saying that you're wrong. However, the article is about books that are often recommended to beginners. Most people will struggle if they start with TAOCP.
- pvg 10y ago
  Is it not a dense text written in an academic style by an academic known for dense, academic writing? It's not. It's much more mathematical than your typical programming book and it might not be suitable for beginners (it says so itself) but that's not because it's 'dense and academic'. It comes with exercises, historical asides, nerdy jokes and so on.
jwdunne 10y ago
You're missing the point. He isn't saying the books are crap, not even TAOCP. He is saying lots of programmers suggest they have read them when really they haven't. You see some of these books suggested to novices. Is TAOCP really the best book for someone just getting started on their first program?
DanBC 10y ago
> > For instance, "I've used my set several times when I was stuck and couldn't find help anywhere else. But TAOCP is always my reference of last resort. It's very dense and academic, and the examples are all in assembly language." Isn't that just agreeing with your point here: > Knuth is an excellent teacher for the right sort of student. He's not for everyone, and there's nothing wrong with that.

caretStick 10y ago

> he just thinks a large percentage of the people that recommend them haven't read much of them. Donald Trump just thinks a lot of things. The author never made a valid argument, but lot of people up-voted, an indicator of the growing friction between the plutocrats and the plebeians.