Donald Knuth

One of my favorite pieces of Smullyan's writing is "Planet Without Laughter": http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/smullyan.html

Without any political connotation, of just email as a communications platform: Email incurs costs of mental kind on the end user. I see nothing bad of not using it - if one can afford not to. For example, Donald Knuth seldom uses email as well. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html I'm not sure if it's such a great strategy for a future president, though (especually as he seems to spend awfull lot of time on twitter).

Funny, since my favorite solution to the N-Queens is from Knuth. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/papers/dancing-color.ps.gz He has an update of this in his book on Fun and Games.

Some other classics: DJBs site: http://cr.yp.to/djb.html Fabrice Bellards site: http://www.bellard.org/ Donald Knuths site: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/

Hm, is history important? There's wikipedia if you're interested in the 'history' of a specific algorithm. For the rest, most books I've seen have pseudo-code, which is easy to translate to code. The classic textbooks are: * "Algorithms" by Robert Sedgewick et al. * "Introduction to Algorithms" by Cormen et al. If you're extremely serious about algorithms, you might wanna go directly with the bible: TAOCP[1]. [1] http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/taocp.html

My guess is that you will find the necessary dependencies in the Stanford GraphBase: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/sgb.html If I remember correctly, the GraphBase source files start with the gb_ prefix (sorry, I'm ony phone so can't check). Note: the Stanford GraphBase for me is an example of how a full blown library can be beautifully written in a literate style. Worth buying the hardcopy and reading it.

May I suggest Hackers by Steven Levy [0]. It was a phenomenal and inspirational read for me. Having born during the turn of the century, I'd missed the evolution of computers and programming. This book helped me fill that gap. Incidentally, Hackers was what I read after I read Masters of Doom. Here's a quote from Masters of Doom: " Overnight, it seemed, Carmack was in a strange house, with a strange family and going to a strange school, a junior high with no gifted program or computer’s. He’d never felt so alone. Then one day he realized he wasn’t. The book Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution was a revelation. " Edit: Donald Knuth heartily recommends it too[1]. [0] http://www.amazon.com/Hackers-Computer-Revolution-Anniversary-Edition/… [1] http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/retd.html

I love the fact that Donald Knuth, one of the most knowledgable minds about computer science, hasn't had an email address since 1990. He used to have one for fifteen years (between 1975 - 1990) but it killed his productivity so he no longer uses it. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html

D. E. Knuth would not agree: "(Encrypted messages that I get from "gmail.com" are also gibberish and unreadable without great pain.) Send PLAIN ASCII TEXT ONLY." http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/taocp.html

Also a Music nut: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/organ.html The organ is really one of the first computers, actually. It takes in an input and based on your function which you switch on and off, transforms it (make my sound sound like flute, make my sound sound like chorus). I would love to visit this man's home as I hear Knuth has a killer home organ. Neat guys! Being a musician before hacker, I now feel less of a fraud. :)

Here is the exact opposite point of view, that we need massively more comments to the point where they are not merely comments, but comprehensive, prose discussion interwoven with code. As far as arguments to change the status quo go, I think Knuth's has more to recommend it: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/lp.html

Brilliant. This reminds me of Knuth who stopped using email back in 1990 (!) [1] [1] http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html

I'm not really a conference-goer but I thought the parties were kind of the point. I'll go see someone famous like http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/musings.html out of sheer tourist curiosity, but if you're just some guy, I'd rather read what you have to say (and unlimited followups) at my leisure than sit through the lecture format. A dry meet&greet could work, but only if there's a critical mass of interesting people who are equally comfortable doing that while sober (i.e., not using a buzz to damp social anxiety).

This is a great list. I would add: * The stable marriage problem (D. Gale and L. S. Shapley: "College Admissions and the Stability of Marriage", American Mathematical Monthly 69, 9-14, 1962.), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_marriage_problem * Knuth's Dancing Links algorithm http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/papers/dancing-color.ps.gz

Knuth's book "Thinks a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About" (http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/things.html) gets in to this topic. I found it to be a great read.

> "These are systems that focus on generating beautifully typeset documentation without allowing the author to arbitrarily order code." The previous sentence was: "When I look around at the legacy of literate programming, systems to do so-called semi- or quasi-literate programming dominate." Semi- or quasi- being intended to distinguish with classic literate programming as in CWeb. I usually try to go out of my way to assume that if someone misunderstands me it's a failure of my writing, but in this case my post is filled with Knuth's original CWeb programs. It didn't seem realistic that you missed them all, or that you thought I missed that CWeb permits reordering in spite of having read so many CWeb programs. And then you make this new jab about me not having read any literate programs, in spite of me showing repeatedly in the article that I went all the way down the list at http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/programs.html. Are you sure you read my post? --- Thanks for the pointer to http://mmix.cs.hm.edu/local. Not immediately obvious that it cares about literate programming, but I'll take your word for it. I'd appreciate intros to anybody in that group with experience reading literate programs (email address in profile).

I have no idea where you get the idea that Don Knuth opposes Lockhart's approach. I guess we'd not know without asking him, but having waded through much of TAOCP, Concrete Mathematics (a book filled to the brim with the kind of delightful discovery of pattern that Lockhart describes as optimal in learning math), Knuth's marvelously playful book "Selected Papers on Fun and Games"[2], and the novel he wrote about Conway's astonishing "Surreal Numbers"[3]...listening to him lecture on "importunate permutation" at the last local (SF) Joint Meeting of the American Mathematical Association, hearing about Knuth's thoughts on the mathematics of pipe organs, and even seeing the play/pattern-making that went into the entrance mosaic in his home [1]....I think you're way off base about what you think Knuth thinks about math education. Lockhart: "...if I had to design a mechanism for the express purpose of destroying a child’s natural curiosity and love of pattern-making, I couldn’t possibly do as good a job as is currently being done— I simply wouldn’t have the imagination to come up with the kind of senseless, soulcrushing ideas that constitute contemporary mathematics education." Knuth [Preface to Concrete Mathematics]: "Some people think that mathematics is serious business that must always be cold and dry; but we think mathematics is fun, and we aren't ashamed to admit the fact. Why should a strict boundary line be drawn between work and play? Concrete mathematics is full of…

Literate Programming, Knuth. My methods have evolved since I first read and started toying with the ideas here, but this is where it started. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/lp.html

No reverse engineering required: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/abcde.html It would be interesting to know at least if it was using the same algorithms.

His position (which is explained on his webpage: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html) is a little more nuanced. Relevant section: > Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration. I think he would agree that a President's role is to be 'on top of things'.

Context for this is here: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/news.html > My academic appointment at Stanford officially began in 1968 — another leap leap year! — but I was actually on a leave of absence, doing some national service at Princeton. Finally I arrived on campus in September of 1969, and began to teach about computer programming. I gave my inaugural colloquium lecture as a Professor of Computer Science on November 4, 1969, speaking about a newfangled concept that I'd decided to call “analysis of algorithms.” As part of Stanford's ClassX Project, plans are afoot to stage a re-enactment of that lecture and to capture the video before a live audience.

I guess this refers to Donald Knuth's "3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated": http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/316.html >The text found in chapter 3, verse 16, of most books in the Bible is a typical verse with no special distinction. But when Knuth examined what leading scholars throughout the centuries have written about those verses, he found that there is a fascinating story to be learned in every case, full of historical and spiritual insights. This book presents jargon-free introductions to each book of the Bible and in-depth analyses of what people from many different religious persuasions have said about the texts found in chapter 3, verse 16, together with 60 original illustrations by many of the world's leading calligraphers. >The result is a grand tour of the Bible -- from Genesis 3:16 to Revelation 3:16 -- a treat for the mind, the eyes, and the spirit.

Donald Knuth on email: "Email is a wonderful thing for people whose role in life is to be on top of things. But not for me; my role is to be on the bottom of things. What I do takes long hours of studying and uninterruptible concentration." http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html

Donald Knuth was saying this how many years ago? It's got to be something like 10 years now. This is why he stopped sending out checks for people finding bugs in his books. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/news08.html

Its interesting to me that many of the people who are in the "who's who" of our space have a very bare-bones web presence. http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dfried/ http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/ http://javascript.crockford.com/

Probably this: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/email.html

don-knuth (yes *that guy) has a fascicle here: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/fasc1b.ps.gz

Might as well read Knuth vol4 fascicle 6 instead: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/news.html

Probably Donald Knuth's book "3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated" where Knuth goes through chapter 3, verse 16, of most books in the Bible. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/316.html http://www.amazon.com/3-16-Bible-Texts-Illuminated/dp/0895792524 While we’re at it, Knuth has also released a book (which is just transcripts of 5-6 lectures) wherein he discusses the 3:16 project: "Things a Computer Scientist Rarely Talks About" http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/things.html http://www.amazon.com/Things-Computer-Scientist-Language-Information/d…

>"He was an enthusiastic musician, though exactly which was his instrument is a subject of some dispute (the most likely candidates are the accordion, jew's harp, and flugelhorn)." It seems the author missed or forgot the legendary pipe organ. http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/organ.html