The Art of Computer Programming Boxed Set (Volumes 1-3) [Hardcover]

 

 

Create your own review

The Art of CP (TAoCP) book set covers the core of computer science curriculum on data structures and algorithms. Not everything there is today (that would be impossible), just the core, but that's more than enough to begin with (and for most people quite sufficient in general.) This is typical Knuth: he knows his stuff, he writes very well, he's an encyclopedic mind; his texts are mathematically rich, yet at the same time not overwhelming; time and again he demonstrates this 19-th century germanic scientific style, which is to say he's incredibly detailed and exact -- one can even accuse him of pedantry, but in a good sense. He writes with a sharp, dry wit (his sense of humour makes him unique among the rest of the writers on the computing theme.) So far so good.

However, all the benefits mentioned above notwithstanding, I have to say that on balance this triptych of his is impractical. It has either become outdated, or was even originally written with an independently-wealthy reader in mind, someone like an 18th century gentleman-farmer who, fully disencumbered of the vulgarity of having to earn a living, is leasurely indulging in the exercise of his mental ability for the pure intellectual challenge of it; someone with no plebeian concerns of practicality ever entering his exalted mind.

The problem is with MIX. I second what the others said about it, and what's more, I refuse to accept the explanation (purportedly Knuth's) posted below by someone: the problem is not only that MIX is an assembly language (which still would be a functional malapropism in a book like that) -- no, a far more grievous problem is that MIX is a phantasm, a whimsically extravagant invention having no real-life equivalent, at least today. The mythical processor underlying this thing (5-byte words, etc) is not something that anyone below 40 years of age has ever seen, even if it does have historical analogues.

The gravamen of the offence here is not that it is some real but unfamiliar processor's assembly -- after all, if you know i86 assembly, you can (kinda, sorta) read the motorola equivalent... No, it is that MIX and the fairy-tale processor architecture it is imagined to run on are *purposely made to resemble nothing* that you may have some familiarity with -- thus making the already-difficult material obfuscated beyond anything even marginally manageable for a regular computing Joe, who has a (real) life, and at any rate, can't limit his CS intake to this one work.

Elucidating difficult in itself CS material via examples in assembly language of even a real (or made-up but realistic) kind is a very bad choice because the student's attention, already taxed by the subject matter itself, will be further burdened by the non-algorithmic nature of the assembly language. But to exacerbate this potential ordeal by insisting on the use of something so gratuitously eccentric and profitless for the reader as MIX is simply unconscionable.

Ideally, what a good CS text of this sort will use is pseudocode. But if a writer wishes to add to his book a realistic slant, it is acceptable that he use some sort of real language -- so long as it is algorithmic; today, C is a perfect choice. Knuth counters (and he's absolutely right): there was no C when the book was written. He's also right in saying that had he written it with Pascal it would have become outdated by now. So if that was the problem, TAoCP could have been written with some sort of pseudocode; this would last forever.

Of course, even using a real language would not actually be such a great problem -- we all know of similar books where the originally-chosen language was replaced when it fell in disuse: for example the numeric programming book by Teukolsky; it started with fortran and was then redone in C; this demonstrates that the language part can be brought up-to-date if necessary. Both Fortran and C are algorithmic languages that, owing to their readability, can be used instead of pseudocode.

Ideally, books should be written with both pseudocode (a must, in my view), and, in order to give an example of an actual implementation, some real language (see the recent book by Goodrich; it's pseudocode throughout and a smattering of Java here and there -- perfect!)

To sum it all up: measured by today's needs, The Art of CP is overrated (out of snobbery; bragging of having read it is "kewl"; meantime, the truth is, not too many people are capable of such a feat for the reasons stipulated above; when actually used, TAoCP books are read in chunks, a chapter here, a chapter there -- which is a shame, because they are very well written, and to work through them in their entirety would be much more profitable than biting off a little here and there.)

I am going to be slammed by the Knuth cult followers for saying this, but I do not recommend these books. Instead, consider something similar but more practical: two titles immediately come to mind, Cormen &Co. (a.k.a. CLR) and Goodrich (forget the title but search on the name.) Foundations of Computer Science by Aho/Ullmann (The Tortoise book) is a suitable option as well.

TAoCP is potentially very good, but until someone ruthlessly excises all the bloody junk (MIX etc.) and replaces it with pseudocode or C, it will remain useless.

Don't get me wrong here: Knuth is an admirable, justly venerated computer scientist, and a very good writer to boot (for example his Concrete Mathematics book is excellent). But when it comes to TAoCP, even though to mention it is very chic in some circles, we must admit the obvious: he has produced a work that's impenetrable (or, rather, the enormity of time and effort required to penetrate it makes such an attempt an unworthy investment) and therefore useless in practical terms for the majority of the potential readership.

Our consumer society provides us with many choices, and it's considered an insult to have less than a dozen different products from which to pick. This text is not a supermarket item with a *best before date*. It does not exist to provide you with plug-in code for your homework assignment. It's not to compared to the latest *** for Dummies publication. What is it then? It is meant to be a scientific document explaining ideas basic to CS from the ground up, and I would add, in the same class as Euclid, or Newton. How many people alive today have read the major works by either author. I don't mean have they taken courses in mathematics - I mean the actual *translated* documents. Easy access to some of these famous works, and from many other authors, was recently annotated by Stephen Hawking called *God Created the Integers*. Try reading those chapters and see how much you understand. Many of these papers are hundreds of years old, ideas that we've lived with for a very long time, but how many of us have understood the depth of rigor that went into developing the foundation of modern mathematics.

Every age is under the impression that their's is the enlightened one, that knowledge is somehow easier to grasp because we are somehow *smarter* than our ancestors - we want to be able to buy a book and deem it very good if we can learn without effort - take a pill and flash the pages and absorb the ideas through our fingertips.

We go to college and university to learn how to learn and how to think. We learn the process of thinking, and understanding the fundamentals of logical deduction and proof is not only in the realm of mathematics but of life experience in general: law, philosophy, physics, consciousness; all require the same insight.

If you don't care how a computer works and just want to access a high level function call or object to do all the work, then you are a consumer of someone else's product. But if you are toolmaker, and believe that every program you write deserves to be a well crafted thing, then you are also an artist. If this idea is foreign to you, then you should pass on these books and buy a *cookbook* from someone else.

The perfect example that categorizes programmers is the willingness or suspicion to use the built-in random number generator available in any given language-specific math library. You are putting application and your reputation on the line by taking for granted that every library function was well-designed and perfect, but if the writers of libraries also took for granted their tools to the same degree as you, then perhaps it will all come crashing down like a house of cards.

Is this book for you - 99% of you will say no. For the 1% that are left and wish to build the tools the other 99% will use, yes this book is for you. This is why open-source software, particularly for systems, compilers, and libraries is so important. Getting a look under the hood separates the magic from the science, and we need to know the details to avoid falling back into the dark ages.

It is with good reason that these books are so well-respected in the field. These books have enough depth for several years of careful study and will be quite rewarding for anyone who takes the time. Still, there are a couple of things to keep in mind before jumping in:

(1) These books are not for the mathematically weak-at-heart. The first section, of over 100 pages, is on mathematical preliminaries. While it is true that there are many later sections that can be understood without this background, to truly get the most from these books will take some mathematical maturity,

(2) The algorithms and programs in the book will be difficult to understand to the modern reader, since they are written in an unstructured (i.e. GOTO-centric) style. Program code is given in assembly language for a fictional computer called MIX. Knuth may have his reasons for sticking with this form, but the reader should be aware that some extra work will be required to follow along.

Aside from these caveats, these books come highly recommended.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 39 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

5.0 out of 5 stars Must read for math and programming lovers
Reading Knuth brings up so many memories: studying reals, infinite sums, and writing exercices solutions using LaTeX - my Math teacher was a big fan of Knuth -. Read more

Published on July 12 2009 by V. Descubes

3.0 out of 5 stars Très, très, très compliqué et obscure
L'auteur connaît sans doute extrêmement bien son sujet. C'est ce qui explique les 3 étoiles. Mais je trouve ses livres beaucoup trop lourds à lire. Read more

Published on Mar 21 2009 by Louis-simon Houde

4.0 out of 5 stars My two cents
Yes, using MIX is all wrong. Psuedo-code that's intuitively obvious would save
us so much trouble. Read more

Published on Mar 20 2004 by Amazon reviewer

3.0 out of 5 stars Precisely, but let us keep our logic straight.
From the review by Ekalavya Nishada: "It is true it uses MIX and does not cover the last 20 years of advances in computer science yet but if you cant understand MIX you have... Read more

Published on Jan 13 2004 by John Doe

5.0 out of 5 stars A must have for serious practitioners
I was amazed to see some people dissing TAoCP. I came across these books 20 years ago when I was learning FORTRAN and Pascal. Read more

Published on Nov 27 2003 by Monadict

1.0 out of 5 stars BETTER BOOKS EXIST, KNUTH IS NOT GOD
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. Read more

Published on Nov 12 2003

5.0 out of 5 stars Bow down to your knees and represent.
Heathen, thou hast reached the Temple Of Computer Science. Knuth be your Bible and Your Bible be Knuth. Read and you shall know. Ask and you shall find. Read more

Published on Nov 2 2003 by George Marselis

5.0 out of 5 stars A Classical & Definitive Work
This is the foundation of any computer scientist's library. While certainly NOT light reading, the wealth of information contained in these volumes is relevant to a variety of... Read more

Published on Oct 24 2003 by Payson Hall

5.0 out of 5 stars Required reading
A generation grew up on Knuth, yet many new coders simply do not know who he is.

The Art of Computer Programming is required reading for anyone serious about computer... Read more

Published on Aug 30 2003 by Eric Kent

5.0 out of 5 stars Why these books are important to me
I started graduate school in the biological sciences in the late 90s. Biomedical research changed a great deal while I was getting my degree. Read more

Published on Nov 7 2002

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 39 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!