Hacker News Reader

Comment by bluenose69 | Hacker News Reader

Knuth has a way of adding life to what might otherwise be dry material. At least to those of us who admire the man and his contributions, this essay reads like a thriller. I knew from the start that what he said would not matter to me, but yet I was drawn from sentence to sentence, powerless to turn away.

Is it just that I'm a fan, having read [1] as a science student? I don't think so, because when I recommend that essay to a student who is frustrated with msword, I almost always get a report about how intriguing it is.

Beyond the material, I think a big factor is that it's simply intriguing to hear what a clear thinker spends time thinking about.

1. Knuth, Donald E. “Mathematical Typography.” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 1, no. 2 (March 1979): 337–72 https://projecteuclid.org:443/euclid.bams/1183544082

View on HN

I'm a registered user of a weather prediction suite of software maintained by someone from the NWS SOO STRC. I'm not a meteorologist and have only once barely got the thing to work, but I stay subscribed because the release announcements are pure fun.

TAoCP is a great book simply in terms of books. It is a plausible candidate as the most important book from the current era. [1] By extension, Knuth is a great writer and his skill in language goes beyond English into mathematics and the logical notation of computer algorithms...like Tolkien, Knuth invents languages in order to enrich his stories. Unlike Tolkien his languages are useful to other scholars.

[1] Note I said "plausible." The standard for a rebuttal is implausibility.

Another possible line of rebuttal might hinge on defining the appropriate era ;-)

There's only one current era. TAoCP is a work in progress as we write.

Timelords are inclined to disagree.

And to be clear, the objection is quite tongue in cheek.

Yeah I know.

Friction at other's expense is sort of played on the internet.

At least for me...

It's not just the cool kids arguing for the sake of arguing any more.

I mean I can carefully say "I believe X" and someone will aggressively argue that it is false because they don't believe X.

And I know that's not what you did here. My apologies for being a wet rag.

My initial intent was actually a subtle nod to your efforts at avoiding tenditious, tedious argument. Because I know that feel.

My apologies for the failed levity.

Thanks. I know it wasn't ill willed.

Reading Knuth is always enjoyable, no matter what he writes about. There's something about his writing style that always brings me joy, even when he's writing about stuff I don't really care about.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com