C Books and algorithm books

[santosh]

Re: C Books and algorithm books

istillshine@gma il.com wrote:

On Apr 13, 8:51 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

>istillsh...@gm ail.com said:
>>

On Apr 12, 3:21 pm, Eric Sosman <esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalid>
wrote:

>>

> I have been reading and re-reading and re-re-reading TAOCP
>for more than thirty years

>>

Is it really a good idea to do so: reading a book for more than 30
years?

>>
>Any old book? No. This book? Yes, absolutely. Given the quality of
>the reader, it shows just how much meat there is in TAOCP.

>
I don't think any book is worth of reading for 30 years. Truth is
hidden in simplicity. Anything too complex is superfluous.
>
"?????????????? ????????", as Zhuangzi said.
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuangzi

But often you arrive at simple truths only after long deliberations.
Unfortunately, there are no simple truths in CS... yet.

[Morris Dovey]

Re: C Books and algorithm books [OT]

santosh wrote:

But often you arrive at simple truths only after long deliberations.
Unfortunately, there are no simple truths in CS... yet.

I see computers and programming as problem-solving tools and
think I've recognized a common pattern in solution-seeking:

[1] Simple problem assessment (All ya hafta do is...)
[2] Movement toward maximum complexity (OMG - never thought about
all that...)
[3] Back to simplicity as ways are found to 'fold' everything
together.

Part three sometimes does take a while - and post-project
epiphanies seem to be fairly common.

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA

http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

[Anand Hariharan]

Re: [OT] Re: C Books and algorithm books

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:54:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Anand Hariharan said:
>

>On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:21:55 -0400, Eric Sosman wrote:
>>

<snip>

>>>
>> Do you know of any other programmer who gives away code and
>>then pays money to people who find bugs in it? (I suppose that
>>in his case the financial hardship may not be severe; I've got
>>one of his checks in a frame on my wall,

>>
>That is impressive!
>>
>>

>>and I bet many others
>>go similarly uncashed.)
>>>

>>
>I'll bet there aren't *many* others. But of those that are, I would
>very much doubt if any would be cashed at all.

>
You are half-right.
>

Knowing that you are one of the recipients of a cheque from Knuth and did
not cash it, I will ask you Richard: Are you saying there are a lot of
people who got cheques from Knuth?

How many are there? Surely not many more than say 27 people. I guess we
are debating the meaning of "many"?

--
ROT-13 email address to reply

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: C Books and algorithm books

istillshine@gma il.com said:

On Apr 13, 8:51 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

>istillsh...@gm ail.com said:
>>

On Apr 12, 3:21 pm, Eric Sosman <esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:

>>

> I have been reading and re-reading and re-re-reading TAOCP
>for more than thirty years

>>

Is it really a good idea to do so: reading a book for more than 30
years?

>>
>Any old book? No. This book? Yes, absolutely. Given the quality of the
>reader, it shows just how much meat there is in TAOCP.

>
I don't think any book is worth of reading for 30 years.

That's absolutely fine - we disagree, but that's okay. In 30 years from
now, let's discuss the matter again.

Truth is
hidden in simplicity.

It can easily take thirty years to discover simplicity.

Anything too complex is superfluous.

Anything too anything is bad. That's what "too" means.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: [OT] Re: C Books and algorithm books

Anand Hariharan said:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:54:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

>Anand Hariharan said:
>>

<snip>

>>>
>>I'll bet there aren't *many* others. But of those that are, I would
>>very much doubt if any would be cashed at all.

>>
>You are half-right.

>
Knowing that you are one of the recipients of a cheque from Knuth and did
not cash it, I will ask you Richard: Are you saying there are a lot of
people who got cheques from Knuth?
>
How many are there? Surely not many more than say 27 people. I guess we
are debating the meaning of "many"?

According to Knuth, over 2,000 such cheques have been written.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Anand Hariharan]

Re: [OT] Re: C Books and algorithm books

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:43:06 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Anand Hariharan said:
>

>On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:54:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>

>>Anand Hariharan said:
>>>

<snip>

>>>>
>>>I'll bet there aren't *many* others. But of those that are, I
>>>would very much doubt if any would be cashed at all.
>>>
>>You are half-right.

>>
>Knowing that you are one of the recipients of a cheque from Knuth
>and did not cash it, I will ask you Richard: Are you saying there
>are a lot of people who got cheques from Knuth?
>>
>How many are there? Surely not many more than say 27 people. I
>guess we are debating the meaning of "many"?

>
According to Knuth, over 2,000 such cheques have been written.
>

I stand corrected. Until a few moments ago, I held the opinion that
the amount on the cheque doubled for every new error that was
detected. I thought the last advertised amount was $2.56, and the
next cheque would be $5.12 and so on (hence my estimate of 27
above).


--
ROT-13 email address to reply

[Eric Sosman]

Re: [OT] Re: C Books and algorithm books

Anand Hariharan wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:43:06 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>

>Anand Hariharan said:
>>

>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:54:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>>Anand Hariharan said:
>>>>

><snip>

>>>>I'll bet there aren't *many* others. But of those that are, I
>>>>would very much doubt if any would be cashed at all.
>>>>
>>>You are half-right.
>>Knowing that you are one of the recipients of a cheque from Knuth
>>and did not cash it, I will ask you Richard: Are you saying there
>>are a lot of people who got cheques from Knuth?
>>>
>>How many are there? Surely not many more than say 27 people. I
>>guess we are debating the meaning of "many"?

>According to Knuth, over 2,000 such cheques have been written.
>>

>
I stand corrected. Until a few moments ago, I held the opinion that
the amount on the cheque doubled for every new error that was
detected. I thought the last advertised amount was $2.56, and the
next cheque would be $5.12 and so on (hence my estimate of 27
above).

He issues different categories of checks for different
circumstances. The doubling series are (if I understand
correctly) for bugs in the published programs TEX and
Metafont, and I think they began at $2.56 ("one million
cents, base two"). There's also a constant $2.56 for the
finders of errors in his published books, and $0.32 for
good suggestions. And he offered $3.00 for errors in pre-
print "fascicles" of books not yet published; it's worth
more to swat a bug before it's committed to paper than
after.

The check framed on my wall is of the last category, and
it's not a token of great genius but of eye for detail: I
spotted a truly tiny typo before the printing of the third
edition of "Seminumeri cal Algorithms." I don't have a sample
from which to judge severity, but I've always suspected that
mine may be the least significant tidbit (sorry) Knuth has paid.

--
Eric Sosman
esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Coos Haak]

Re: [OT] Re: C Books and algorithm books

Op Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:09:24 -0400 schreef Eric Sosman:

Anand Hariharan wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:43:06 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>

>>Anand Hariharan said:
>>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:54:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Anand Hariharan said:
>>>>>
>><snip>
>>>>>I'll bet there aren't *many* others. But of those that are, I
>>>>>would very much doubt if any would be cashed at all.
>>>>>
>>>>You are half-right.
>>>Knowing that you are one of the recipients of a cheque from Knuth
>>>and did not cash it, I will ask you Richard: Are you saying there
>>>are a lot of people who got cheques from Knuth?
>>>>
>>>How many are there? Surely not many more than say 27 people. I
>>>guess we are debating the meaning of "many"?
>>According to Knuth, over 2,000 such cheques have been written.
>>>

>>
>I stand corrected. Until a few moments ago, I held the opinion that
>the amount on the cheque doubled for every new error that was
>detected. I thought the last advertised amount was $2.56, and the
>next cheque would be $5.12 and so on (hence my estimate of 27
>above).

>
He issues different categories of checks for different
circumstances. The doubling series are (if I understand
correctly) for bugs in the published programs TEX and
Metafont, and I think they began at $2.56 ("one million
cents, base two").

One million cents, base two would be $0.64
A hunderd million cents, base two would be $2,56

<VERY OT>
2 BASE ! 1000000 DECIMAL . 64 ok
</OT>

--
Coos

[I]

Re: C Books and algorithm books

istillshine@gma il.com wrote:

Questions for the major contributors to comp.lang.c.
>
What C books do you have?
What C books have you read?

i like "c: the complete reference" a lot . it is very well written and
easy to understand and i totally learned a whole lot from reading it b/c
it explanes what goes on behind the scenes . very good revues on amazone

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: C Books and algorithm books

A subscriber describing himself as "I" said:

istillshine@gma il.com wrote:
>

>Questions for the major contributors to comp.lang.c.
>>
>What C books do you have?
>What C books have you read?

>
i like "c: the complete reference" a lot . it is very well written and
easy to understand

Both true. Unfortunately, it contains a vast number of technical errors.
Being very well written and easy to understand is *not* sufficient to
qualify a book as a good C tutorial.

and i totally learned a whole lot from reading it b/c
it explanes what goes on behind the scenes . very good revues on amazone

Presumably you would also recommend eating horse-manure, on the grounds
that ten trillion flies can't be wrong.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Nick Keighley]

Re: C Books and algorithm books

On 12 Apr, 17:02, Eric Sosman <esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:

istillsh...@gma il.com wrote:

Questions for the major contributors to comp.lang.c.

>

What C  books do you have?

>
     "The C Programming Language," Kernighan and Ritchie (original)

great book

     "C: A Reference Manual," Harbison and Steele

great book. I think it is better for the standard library
than K&R and I've heard the latest edition a good reference for
C99 (if you are interested in it).

     "C Traps and Pitfalls," Koenig

never got on with this.

     "The Standard C Library," Plauger

great book! Not only does it document the library and
provide you with an implementation but it also guides
you through the design of a C library.

Lots of stuff on writing portable C.

>

What C books have you read?

>
     As above.
>

Which algorithm book is your favorite?

>
     "The Art of Computer Programming," Knuth

If you want more of a recipe book (less theory)
try Sedgewick

>

What resources that you find particularly useful, beside comp.lang.c
and its FAQ?

http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/

     The wide world and all therein.  (Really, the question
is too broad to admit of a useful answer.)
>

I ask the above questions mainly to see what I lack.  And the answer
may help other newbies as well by letting people know what "weapons"
have been proved to be useful.  I might have asked too many questions
these days, but I promise I will reduce them to less than 2 daily from
now on.

>
     Learn Lisp.  You may not use it much, but it will improve
your use of other programming languages.

--
Nick Keighley

"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare

[Richard Bos]

Re: [OT] Re: C Books and algorithm books

Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Eric Sosman said:

istillshine@gma il.com wrote:
>On Apr 12, 3:21 pm, Eric Sosman <esos...@ieee-dot-org.invalidwrot e:
>>
>> I have been reading and re-reading and re-re-reading TAOCP
>>for more than thirty years
>Is it really a good idea to do so: reading a book for more than 30
>years?
Some of my acquaintances read and re-read an even older
book over even longer periods. One passage in that book says
>
A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and
a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels.

On the other hand, the same book also says

Of making many books there is no end,
and much study wearies the body.

>
"The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
-- from a writing whose age is intermediate between
the abovementioned pair, also many times re-read

"For every thing, turn, turn, turn,
there is a season, turn, turn, turn"
-- almost from one of those books

Richard

[Andrew Haley]

Re: C Books and algorithm books

istillshine@gma il.com wrote:

Questions for the major contributors to comp.lang.c.

I'm not a major contributor here but I am a gcc maintainer, so...

What C books do you have?

The most important ones:

ISO 9899:1999
ISO 9899:1990

also

K&R Second ed.
Harbison and Steele: C, A Reference Manual

What C books have you read?

as above.

Which algorithm book is your favorite?

Knuth, Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs

but there are dozens of algorithm books at home.

Andrew.

[Jean-Marc Bourguet]

Re: C Books and algorithm books

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littl epinkcloud.inva lidwrites:

>
Knuth, Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs

It's from Wirth.

--
Jean-Marc

[Andrew Haley]

Re: C Books and algorithm books

Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.or gwrote:

Andrew Haley <andrew29@littl epinkcloud.inva lidwrites:

Knuth, Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs

It's from Wirth.

It is; sorry everyone. I even picked up the book and read the title
from the cover and I *still* got it wrong...

Andrew.