> Also, why is it suddenly in vogue to bash TAOCP and CLRS? I guess for the same reasons people want to bash the current interviewing institution in place. Pe

> Also, why is it suddenly in vogue to bash TAOCP and CLRS? I guess for the same reasons people want to bash the current interviewing institution in place. Personally, I go with "it is what it is, deal with it if you want THAT job" Back to the context, I think I find CLRS much more approachable than TAOCP. It relies on pseudo-code and fairly simple mathematical symbology to formalise the algorithms it is treating. With TAOCP I have tried by can't get past the language of the imaginary CPU which it uses. Also, there are other simply excellent texts on Algorithms which I personally found much more useful than TAOCP (in decreasing order of "easiness") - Python Algorithms - The Algorithm Design Manual - CLRS - Algorithms in Java (somehow I found CLRS easier to follow than this) - And then I found this recently, "Algorithms on Strings,Trees and Sequences: Computer Science and Computational Biology" (one should have at least gone through the first two recommendations before starting with this one to make it easier to read this one) Disclaimer : I have a growing interest in learning Algorithms due to the requirements of interviews, however I have come to believe that the knowledge will go a long way.