I've always thought Knuth was quite entertaining and droll, even in his scientific work. Like the time he showed up for Randall Munroe's Google talk and asked a

I've always thought Knuth was quite entertaining and droll, even in his scientific work. Like the time he showed up for Randall Munroe's Google talk and asked about the n log (log n) sort algorithm discovered by his dark apprentice Elaine. http://xkcd.com/342/ http://xkcd.com/342/ I think the problem with reviews like this one that say "I wish this guy had written a different book" is that they refuse to take the work and the author on their own terms. TAoCP is obviously on a mission to rigorously define algorithms at the heart of computer science, compare them, and make provable statements about their complexity. On those grounds, none of the pedagogical texts the author prefers holds a candle to the blinding glory of TAoCP. (Of course, they weren't really trying to.) It's the same with all kinds of art. Come to it full of expectations that the art doesn't fulfill, and you won't make the connection... but that's not the art's fault.