TAOCP is so much superior to CLRS it is not even close. At the end of each section of CLRS they ususally mention Knuth anyways. Knuth's writing is clear and am

TAOCP is so much superior to CLRS it is not even close. At the end of each section of CLRS they ususally mention Knuth anyways. Knuth's writing is clear and amazing. It really makes the history of computer interesting. Pretty typical of the author of the post who did not complete TAOCP to say it is somehow flawed for being too cryptic. Why is the author concerned about what others have read or not anyways? It seems he more concerned about proving he has read more than others.