Knuth TAOCP, Volume 4A Arrives. Pre-Order Your Copy
informit.com
informit.com
Knuth is obviously one-of-a-kind, but for me personally learning a new architecture requires more brain space than I have to spare, and pretty much guarantees I'll never read it. Which makes me a bit sad.
I know that at the time, C looked like it might pass by like Pascal did before it, but in retrospect I think C would have aged far better and made the book far more approachable.
It's a bit ironic, because one of the main justifications for using a machine language was that high-level languages go in and out of style. But Knuth did not avoid this himself, as MIX (a CISC-like architecture) was obsoleted and had to be replaced with MMIX (a RISC-like architecture)!
So, skip the whole half of Vol. 1.
The real reason to read them, though, is because roughly every third page will have something you just have to play with, like the neat things in the part on circular lists (sorry to be vague, it's been a few years). Buy it: there's so much in there you're guaranteed to find something fascinating.
Knuth gets accused of being abstruse, but compared to most math books I've read, he's very clear. Moreover, he has a genuine unpretentious fascination with the things about which he's writing, and that enthusiasm comes through in his writing.
For that reason I'll be buying and enjoying the fourth volume, although I'd like to wait until all three "sub" volumes are published so I can get them in a box.
Unfortunately, though, I don't think Knuth would be a good reference for garbage collection anymore. That particular problem (and several others covered in the books) have moved so quickly that Knuth's descriptions haven't aged well. His most advanced example of GC was a crude mark-and-sweep system, which would be horribly archaic if implemented today.
PS: I had occasion a while back to implement a random number generator that produced numbers from a normal distribution. It was a lot of fun to crack Volume II open and use it as my reference (after poking around a bit to make sure the information wasn't obsolete).
> Knuth gets accused of being abstruse, but compared to most math books I've read, he's very clear. Moreover, he has a genuine unpretentious fascination with the things about which he's writing, and that enthusiasm comes through in his writing.
I totally agree. I guess the complaints are because where other books just say "see? get it?", TAOCP keeps going, down to measuring the complexity (not the order of complexity, actually counting how many times each instruction gets executed, which I think is why he uses MIX instead of a higher-level language).
. . . Man, now I want to drop Elements of Computing Systems and go back and read volume I again.
I just hope he lives long enough to complete the rest of the book(s) he has planned. This thing took so long that it's, like, the Duke Nukem Forever of CS books. :-(
Which means you can catch Atlas Shrugged [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/] in a movie theater near you before you play the game.
http://kotaku.com/5634491/think-this-duke-nukem-forever-pre+...
Only a nuclear holocaust can prevent the release of the game now.
Didn't expect that.
But no, this time its for real.
Don't apply the coupon code. You actually get it for a lower price if you just add it to your cart and checkout as normal. There is an extra deal going on right now that lowers the price another 5% on orders over $55. Applying the coupon cancels this extra deal.
You end up getting the book for $149.99 vs $162.49 if you use the coupon. Great deal, and 50 dollars lower than amazon's preorder price.
That's by far the best price I've seen for the collected volumes though.
So people shouldn’t worry too much yet about the book being full of errors. :)
And then, from the site:
---
After Volume 5 has been completed, I will revise Volumes 1--3 again to bring them up to date. In particular, the new material for those volumes that has been issued in beta-test fascicles will be incorporated at that time.
Then I will publish a ``reader's digest'' edition of Volumes 1--5, condensing the most important material into a single book.
And after Volumes 1--5 are done, God willing, I plan to publish Volume 6 (the theory of context-free languages) and Volume 7 (Compiler techniques), but only if the things I want to say about those topics are still relevant and still haven't been said. Volumes 1--5 represent the central core of computer programming for sequential machines; the subjects of Volumes 6 and 7 are important but more specialized. ---
Which would all be wonderful, but seems possibly overoptimistic. Sadly.
Dang, I've been waiting a while for vol 4.
But feel free to get out more, anyway.
And I apologize if my original response came across as snarky-- I was aiming for jovial.
No doubt staff is drastically reduced in these acquisitions. How does a high-quality name avoid falling apart? Do they start shoveling crap to compete?
The available titles in computing have certainly vastly increased since I started out (for that I am thankful), but for many publishers the quality of editing is very poor.
I am not very fluent in maths, so now I am worried if it is at all understandable to study it on my own? Maybe I am completely off in my assumptions here.. I would appreciate some feedback!
Oh and, any other equally fundamental IT/computers/programming MUST_READS you can recommend?
It's comprehensible, though it's definitely not written in an "algorithms for dummys" style. Check it out from a library and give it a try... you might be surprised.
Reading TAOCP was a worthwhile experience but I feel the Introduction to Algorithms is of more practical use because it covers a lot more ground (at less depth) and is a much easier read.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Algorithms-Third-Thomas-C...
This isn't something you read on your Kindle while taking the Subway uptown.
Edit: to clarify, I'm not saying it shouldn't be on paper - freedom of choice! - I'm saying it should also be available digitally. And to the person who said that TAOCP is only a collector's item, you're completely ludicrous.
I beg to differ. While they may all have been ludicrous, they were not equally so.
I expect this comment will be downvoted as well.