3 ms·
It's getting off topic, but I love how we interpret Knuth's works like those of Rashi[1] interpreting the Talmud: His commentary on Tanakh—especially on the Ch
by ido 4y ago
It's getting off topic, but I love how we interpret Knuth's works like those of Rashi[1] interpreting the Talmud:
His commentary on Tanakh—especially on the Chumash ("Five Books of Moses")—serves as the basis for more than 300 "supercommentaries" which analyze Rashi's choice of language and citations, penned by some of the greatest names in rabbinic literature.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi
- gjm11 4y agoYeah, I did feel a little weird writing commentaries on Knuth's writing just like he was writing commentaries on Paul's. Fortunately no one thinks I am obliged to regard Knuth as perfectly free from error. (Speaking of not being perfectly free from error, in my earlier comment I wrote "if that's the right idea" but of course I meant "if that's the right word", but I didn't notice until after it was too late to edit.)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]