algorithms

This was one of the first computer books I read 20 years ago (the selection in our office was limited). It remains one of the best in its field. There is just so much information in this series of books that you be hard pushed to ever to think of a fundamental computing problem that hasn't been covered. The books are more geared towards computer scientists than application programmers like myself but nevertheless are really worth reading. Modern high level languages do so much for you these days that it is easy to forget what is going on under the bonnet (or 'hood' for US readers) but even if you don't need to know the details, familiarity with the principles will greatly benefit your work.

There are a lot of programmers who can write code that works but don't have any great feel for what they are doing. The best programmers understand not only what they are doing but why they are doing it that way. These are the ones who deliver the best results and this series of books can place you firmly in this camp.

The only weakness of the book isits over reliance on the author's MIX language. Certainly there are reasons for him using it but it is still a barrier for many people.

Computer Science has progressed dramatically over the last few decades. However, advances in fundamental algorithms, and available treatise remains scant, incomplete, or slanted towards technolgy-du-jour. Professor Knuth's work in the field is still the definitive resource. The first in a series of three volumes, this book is a must-have for any computer scientist who wants a fundamental understanding of algorithms, their deisgn, and their application. The use of MIX is somewhat dated, but the content is not. The depth and thoroughness of the description makes this as the quintessential reference for fundamental data structures, and oft-needed system level algorithms.

People buy Knuth's books for snob appeal, which is to say that they like to put the 3-book set on their shelves as an advertisement for their own intellegence. What they don't realize is that truly talented individuals will see beyond this kind of cheap PR stunt. "Look, I read Knuth... boy, I must be a genius!"

Donald Knuth obviously has offered extra credit to students who provide him with glowing reviews on amazon. "Oh geeze, this is the best book ever. Bow down and kiss his feet." For all we know, he may even offer a cash reward.

This is just one of those cases where the myth of Knuth has overshadowed reality. Is Knuth well known? Yes. Has Knuth been around forever. Yes. Has knuth published countless articles? Yes. Are his books used in day-to-day coursework on top-ten engineering schools. NO, THEY ARE NOT.

For data structures, most *working* professors would refer you to Cormen, Leiserson, and Rivest (or maybe Robert Sedgewick). For scientific computing, most *active researchers* would suggest a book like Michael Heath's. For random numbers, you'd be better off with Kelton and Law's book on simulation. For computer architecture, everyone uses Patterson and Hennessey. See a pattern here?

The truth is that fields mature, and textbooks get better and better. Knuth has decided that it's too much work to stay current; he'd rather stick to 6-bit MIX assembler code and his precious universal truths.

Well, Professor Knuth, I have news for you: there are more recent books out there that do a much better job at stating "universal truths" with the added benefit of being easily readable.

I don't buy the excuse that it's too much work to re-write code examples in different languages. Isn't this what graduate students were made for Prof. Knuth? Hell, you don't even have to pay them that much. Just try not to speak down to them, oh great one.

I also don't buy the excuse that he uses MIX so that the reader can look at the finer details of performance and memory consumption. Isn't this the same man who said that "premature optimization is the root of all evil?" In other words, don't optimize; use a better algorithm. You don't need to look at assembly code to analyze algorithms, O(n) analysis should suffice...at least, it's more of a "universal truth" approach.

By trying to write a complete survey of computer science, Knuth trys to be everything to everyone. In doing so, he does nothing as well as he could have (and certainly not as well as the textbooks currently being used). What he has ended up with is an expensive white elephant, that will look pretty while it collects dust.

Stop making excuses Professor Knuth. Get off your d@mn organ and get back to work.