Algorithm textbook complaint

By -
When I took algorithms, we used Robert Sedgwick's book, called, quite imaginatively on his part, Algorithms. Today, the book usually known as CLRS, for the initials of the last names of the authors, dominates the algorithm textbook market.

I am re-reading Sedgwick at the moment, leading me to say: I think this is a shame. Sedgwick's book is much clearer and better written. It also has a much more useful approach for engineering students, with emphasis on how to actually implement the algorithms, rather than pages of mathematical proofs of their run-time complexity.

Comments

  1. Ken B11:34 PM

    In Pascal?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah10:51 PM

      My old version is in fact in Pascal, but he now has it out in C++.

      Delete
  2. Ken B10:06 PM

    I am just trying to identify the better version. I assume it's the Pascal.
    It really shouldn't matter unless there's a disc or downloadable code of course, but it will have a HUGE effect on the used price!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah6:29 PM

      I have never seen the inside of the C++ version. (My colleague has it on his shelf, which is why I know it exists.)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more