🚀 go-pugleaf

In article  <5979.Jun2519.38.4991@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Dan Bernstein writes:
[about Knuth books being out of date]
]
]C'mon, Oz. You said the books are out of date by a decade and a half.
]That means that there have been discoveries throughout the last 15 years
]which, had they been known at the time, would have been included in the
]books.

No, Dan, that is not what "out of date" means.  "Out of date" in this
context means that (1) there are much better ways to express
algorithms than the opaque, archaic notations in ACP, and (2) there
are new ways to approach the teaching of algorithms which many people
feel are better than the approach in ACP (your opinion on this is
irrelevant).

Besides, you just want to play this game where people suggest
algorithms that should have been in the books and aren't, then you get
to chortle and say "that doesn't fit the subject matter of the books",
or "that was going to be in the fourth book", or "that isn't an
important algorithm".  (I've had this discussion with Dan before...)

Let me answer each objection once, to save net bandwidth:

Objection: "that doesn't fit the subject matter of the books"
Answer: then the subject matter of the books is outdated as material
for teaching algorithms.  There are different ways of teaching
algorithms today (as before, your opinion on whether these new methods
are better, is without relevance).

Objection: "that was going to be in the fourth book"
Answer: if the fourth book ever gets written, then it presumably won't
be out of date when it is first published.

Objection: "that isn't an important algorithm"
Answer: Is so.

Basically, Dan, this is a matter of opinion.  Most CS people think
that the books are out of date -- for teaching at least.  The fact
that you have a different opinion is neither interesting nor
enlightening.  So why do you insist on afflicting us with your
argumentative opinions?  Surely you don't think you are going to
change anyone's mind.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman