Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!arizona!gudeman From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Will this *thread* ever halt? Message-ID: <4581@optima.cs.arizona.edu> Date: 26 Jun 91 07:17:27 GMT Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu Lines: 46 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 Dan Bernstein writes: [about Knuth books being out of date] ] ]C'mon, Oz. You said the books are out of date by a decade and a half.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 No, Dan, that is not what "out of date" means. "Out of date" in this context means that (1) there are much better ways to express algorithms than the opaque, archaic notations in ACP, and (2) there are new ways to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Objection: "that doesn't fit the subject matter of the books" Answer: then the subject matter of the books is outdated as material for teaching algorithms.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"that was going to be in the fourth book" Answer: if the fourth book ever gets written, then it presumably won't be out of date when it is first published.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 Most CS people think that the books are out of date -- for teaching at least.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