4 ms·
I use it as a reference, perhaps 4/5 times a year. Usually I reach for TAOCP with a reasonably clear idea of what specific problem I’m trying to solve and what
by simon_acca 3y ago
I use it as a reference, perhaps 4/5 times a year.
Usually I reach for TAOCP with a reasonably clear idea of what specific problem I’m trying to solve and what class of algorithm I’ll try to find in there. So if you find yourself in this position at times, then might he worth the investment, otherwise I’d perhaps go for something like the Cormen instead, which can actually be pleasantly read cover to cover to get a better sense of the landscape, so to speak.
Personally I wouldn’t read TAOCP from cover to cover, the uncompromising rigor makes it quite the tough read.
- kevviiinn 3y ago>Personally I wouldn’t read TAOCP from cover to cover, the uncompromising rigor makes it quite the tough read Seconded. I tried, it hurt
- _madmax_ 3y agoI agree. It hurts. It hurts bad.
- anta40 3y ago+1. For practical use, Introduction to Algorithms may be a overall better reference. Probably TAOCP is only useful if you are doing CS research, where heavy mathematical analysis is often needed.
- Turing_Machine 3y agoEven the CLRS Introduction to Algorithms is maybe a little heavy if you just want to use the algorithms. If you're in that category, the Sedgewick "Algorithms in (language of your choice)" books are probably the best bang for the buck. There's also Jeff Erickson's Algorithms book, which is available free online. http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/ http://jeffe.cs.illinois.edu/teaching/algorithms/ Disclaimer: I had Erickson as a professor many years ago (though I strongly doubt he remembers me).