TAOCP Suitability Debate

This sounds like "Just read the TAOCP, then you could be a programmer".

Well, they're difficult books to read to begin with. Knuth himself would be surprised if someone has read and understood them all. At the same time, I find they're hyped up a bit (like SICP). There are plenty of other really good algorithms books IMHO.

No. The authors are purposely obscure and arrogant.There are much better books to learn algorithms from. Even Elements of Programming Interviews is better.It is worth coming back to if you want to read proofs to understand things in depth. But it is terrible as a fundamental instructive text.

People talk about The Art of Computer Programming that way. I can't personally speak for the contents though.

I don't think most of us here are the intended audience for a book like this. TAOCP is meant to be a comprehensive compilation of the field of computer science. Such content is useful for people like researchers, lecturers, and those who work on computer languages. But for software engineers - there are much better books that will help you. Some of my favorites:- pragmatic programmer- code complete- hackers and paintersThat's not to say his works are 'bad' -- but

The art of computer programming; not really an introduction, but a must read.

What's wrong with less cryptic books like these?http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Jon-Kleinberg/dp/0321...http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Algorithms-Third-Thomas-C...

Grandparent comment is asking for textbooks. The Art of Computer Programming is not considered a textbook, it's a treatise.

That is like recommending a Knuth book for somebody wanting to learn Python.

Hard disagree - I'd consider it the encyclopedia of Computer Science. Yes, might not be great to read in entirety but found very useful exploring some search algorithms recently - KMP and Boyer-Moore both explored in the excruciating detail I needed