3 ms·

I've never read "Algorithms in C" before. I'm trying to track it down in Amazon, but it seems like there is a paperback called "Algorithms in C" by Sedgewick, a

by mcantor 17y ago

I've never read "Algorithms in C" before. I'm trying to track it down in Amazon, but it seems like there is a paperback called "Algorithms in C" by Sedgewick, as well as a 5-piece bundle also called "Algorithms in C, parts 1 - 5" by Sedgewick. Does anyone know if the former is just part 1 of the latter?

EdwardCoffin 17y ago
I believe the latter is just a later, expanded edition of the former. I do know that they are all part of a series that he has been revising for two decades, starting with "Algorithms" which was in Pascal, then branching out to have editions in C and Modula-3, then revisions in several volumes/parts. The first edition of Algorithms in C was just a single volume. The paperback you mention is probably just a copy of that edition - if I'm looking at the same one as you, it looks like a paperback of the hardcover I remember from fifteen years or so ago.
notaddicted 17y ago
[redacted]
GeneralMaximus 17y ago
In stores, I've usually seen parts 1-4 in a single volume. (Note that these are the Indian LPEs (Low Price Editions) by Prentice Hall India.)
sketerpot 17y ago
Parts 1-4 are in one volume, and then part 5 (graph algorithms) is big enough that it gets its own volume. I own the parts 1-4 book, and it's very pleasant and readable. The pictures of the algorithms in action really help make the concepts clearer. (They're also a cool hack; the author wrote implementations of the algorithms with a bunch of printf calls to spit out PostScript code, which used a high-level graphics API that he wrote, in PostScript, for the purpose of making diagrams of running algorithms.)
mahmud 17y ago
Algorithms in C is a classic, Algorithms in Foo is, sadly, not. Sedgewick's text, much like Appel's compiler text, is a one-language book with a bad gettext translation for other programming languages. Read Sedgewick in C and Appel in ML. Skip the C++, Java, and C# versions of both books, they usually pop up in bookstores at the end of summer.
- kragen 17y ago
  The bit I've skimmed of Algorithms in C++ seemed like it did a pretty reasonable job of using C++ templates effectively; I don't think it was a bad gettext translation.

by mcantor 17y ago

EdwardCoffin 17y ago

I believe the latter is just a later, expanded edition of the former. I do know that they are all part of a series that he has been revising for two decades, starting with "Algorithms" which was in Pascal, then branching out to have editions in C and Modula-3, then revisions in several volumes/parts. The first edition of Algorithms in C was just a single volume. The paperback you mention is probably just a copy of that edition - if I'm looking at the same one as you, it looks like a paperback of the hardcover I remember from fifteen years or so ago.

notaddicted 17y ago

[redacted]

GeneralMaximus 17y ago

In stores, I've usually seen parts 1-4 in a single volume. (Note that these are the Indian LPEs (Low Price Editions) by Prentice Hall India.)

sketerpot 17y ago

Parts 1-4 are in one volume, and then part 5 (graph algorithms) is big enough that it gets its own volume. I own the parts 1-4 book, and it's very pleasant and readable. The pictures of the algorithms in action really help make the concepts clearer. (They're also a cool hack; the author wrote implementations of the algorithms with a bunch of printf calls to spit out PostScript code, which used a high-level graphics API that he wrote, in PostScript, for the purpose of making diagrams of running algorithms.)

mahmud 17y ago

Algorithms in C is a classic, Algorithms in Foo is, sadly, not. Sedgewick's text, much like Appel's compiler text, is a one-language book with a bad gettext translation for other programming languages. Read Sedgewick in C and Appel in ML. Skip the C++, Java, and C# versions of both books, they usually pop up in bookstores at the end of summer.

kragen 17y ago
The bit I've skimmed of Algorithms in C++ seemed like it did a pretty reasonable job of using C++ templates effectively; I don't think it was a bad gettext translation.