"Introduction to Algorithms" Why classic

For a long time, what you want me to write about the non-technical category is not less dependent on the blog.

From the beginning of 0 learning techniques. You will meet a lot of similar problems and I disappoint them. It will give people help. However, non-technical things, he also wrote to himself to see, in the non-existent "I think small" converted into "I want to be big" before (see the Liu Weipeng blog after the feeling), I do not need other people's understanding and sympathy.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a person can fully understand a person even if they are communicating face to head. What's more, living thoughts become dead words. Today however. I just want to write it down in my heart. The level of people is not the same, for example, many computer majors have been able to program before entering the university, and I have not even CD-ROM and CD-ROM is not clear. I just want to say here that I have been in the heart did not say, to my blog friends please skip this article.

It comes from a control. The recent learning Network stream algorithm, chewed a domestic well-known algorithm textbook for several days. Through constant repetition is to memorize a lot of basic concepts, but remember the more concepts, the more questions in mind.

For algorithmic learning, rote arithmetic is very inefficient. I then opened the introduction of the algorithm, cross-learning. Read the "Introduction to the algorithm" a few pages, found that the two books explain the way there are very big differences. Simple control under the square: "Introduction to the algorithm", the 26th chapter of the network flow algorithm. A total of 35 pages (translated Chinese version), using 10 sets of demonstration pictures, a total of 64 lines of pseudo-code, the domestic well-known textbook, the same content of the network flow algorithm, with 40 pages, 4 pictures, no picture is used to demonstrate the algorithm running flow, the most surprising is that, In the 40-page algorithm commentary. The C + + code exceeds 20 pages!

64 lines of pseudo-code and more than 20 pages of C + + code. This is a huge contrast. I am very disappointed and sorry about the textbook in China. This reminds me of a quote from Hawking. The main idea is that each physical formula in the book will reduce the number of readers by half, the same, for the interpretation algorithm of the book. The number of lines in the code is inversely proportional to the readability of the book. The code is very personal and sees code that differs from its own style. Unconscious will produce a kind of rejection mentality. Not to mention the code in our domestic textbooks: messy style, ugly fonts. Poor paper and typographical errors. The most painful thing to me is. The complete code is fragmented. With the need to explain the algorithm, here sprinkle a small piece, there sprinkle a small piece, I often for a baffling variable and function call everywhere in the front of the page to find its meaning, or according to the context to guess its meaning. The basic data structures such as stacks, queues, and linked lists are inevitably used in the code in order to focus on the algorithms. The implementation of these data structures should not be affixed to the code, so just to make up some names, used to the STL, I do not adhere to the STL conventions in the code is very offensive.

While reading, I remind myself. Know what the code means. It is not necessary to be so serious about these codes.

I think, the author's original intention is to be useful, I carefully read some code, I feel the author of the algorithm is very concise implementation of the Code, the details of the process is very good, but unfortunately, there are too many details in the code, an obscure pseudo-code will increase the burden of readers, the dilemma of choice.

Assuming that this textbook makes me feel sorry, then other textbooks, bookstores in the overwhelming basic tutorials, novice tutorials, let people indignation. Although the electronic industry publishing house and the mechanical industry publishing house constantly introduce the book that people want to buy, it has no influence on the textbook. Memories of my college textbooks. C, C + +, data structures, algorithms, which are filled with a lot of bad style code: No indentation, no gaze, variable name is ABCD or Hanyu Pinyin. I was writing this code in agony. In my C + + class, I saw the teacher write int anintvar on the blackboard, and I was excited for this variable name for a long time.

With the writing of the code more up, and non-textbook of the classical technical books of contact with more, I have the university textbooks and classroom frustration and resentment is also increasing. University of those theoretical strong specialized courses of teaching materials, very many places clearly a few words can point through the things, but the long-winded obscure difficult to understand the lecture on a large heap, in need of meticulous explanation, but often another sentence, it seems lest can not show off its superb level.

Those difficult words, read very many times only to find that it is just that, it really makes people think that the purpose of interpretation in this way. is because of the real problem is helpless. To be devoted to these small issues. Neither is the simplicity of mathematics straightforward. And not popular, a word: into the seemingly very deep. It's definitely not shallow.

These rotten textbooks and bad books have led to a more serious consequence: the really good textbooks have been neglected.

Now, when it comes to the word "textbook," our impression is that it is a pile of stale, inflexible, rigid forms of junk paper designed to cope with exams. This makes the very precious essence of the textbook be taken together as rubbish. Try to throw it away after the test. It's no matter what the party. is a huge waste.

In fact. Some of the university's specialty textbooks are not much cheaper than the classics.

Why do we only see those poorly-printed textbooks in class, and since we don't have good ones, why not "get" better?

These are just my complaints. I just went to college when the computer is an idiot, often get a lot of easy to confuse the noun, in the class very much, I do not see it and the computer has any contact, teachers do not learn from these lessons in addition to what to say, so often skip class, until the lesson is very useful to know when to escape. The course has been completed for testing and we have accumulated a lot of dissatisfaction.

But I also read a lot of my most blog revelation, we see a lot of good technical writer writing, to blame, I am full of hope. Just feeling, it takes time.

"Introduction to Algorithms" Why classic