The title. I have read many technical books (mostly compilation, programming languages & automata) , blogs and whatnot, and recently borrowed the above mentioned book Volume4 (combinatorial problems) from a local library. Just to give a try since Knuth is such a respected person in computer science.

It is by far the most frustrating and maddening book i ever laid my eyes upon. The author doesn’t make the slightest effort to explain why something is useful, changes examples before explaining why previous example is interesting or how it shows why X is useful. On page 8, he says that “Graeco Latin squares allowed to François Cretté de Palluel to do with 16 sheeps, what otherwise would require 64 sheeps”. How & why ?? No fucking clue. I know i am not the smartest person on earth, but i would love a little hand holding here, you know to explain a concept he introduced 2 pages previously, and gave 3 random anecdotes about.

The writing style is a complete opposite of what I (and I believe, what are most people ) am expecting. If you know something, it won’t be useful, and you don’t know something : don’t count on the book for explanation. I had the physical urge to slap Knuth. It’s absolutely maddening.

He then goes on his little hobby to gather 5 letter-English-words, and gives some fancy looking graphs with fancy names (3 cubes, Petterson graph, Chvatal graph). For all what i know, it could be graphs called 42 and graph Blabla. Again no clue how it’s useful, nor why it’s interesting. He introduces some definitions and theorems.

I am on page 26 (thr book is thicker than a bible) i think i am done. This book will not make you a better programmer, i have no idea who and for what reason could possibly find it useful?

If you think i am overreacting and should continue reading, please tell me so, but i don’t expect it to get better

  • kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E@programming.devOP
    4·
    2 months ago

    Because volume 1 is not available in the library

    Edit: but also the volumes aren’t not dependent on each other. They treat very different topics, i doubt reading Volume 1 will help with Volume 4.

        • dragontamer@lemmy.worldEnglish
          9·
          2 months ago

          Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 (which make up Volume 1) is repeatedly mentioned to be special and fundamental to the rest of the book series.

        • SuperbEnglish
          7·
          2 months ago

          Right, volumes 2-3 are independent. Volume 1 isn’t.

          I don’t think your opinion is necessarily wrong, but you should give the books another try starting from 1.

            • SuperbEnglish
              4·
              2 months ago

              I don’t understand what you’re getting at? Clearly book one is meant to give a foundation to every the other books in the series. Now you’re getting all huffy because you don’t understand this book without that foundation.

              I’m not saying that you’re wrong or stupid. I’m saying if you read the first book then you might actually get something out of the rest. You also might not! It’s equally possible that this series just isn’t helpful for you.