16 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
What's with all these negatived reviews?, November 10, 2000
This review is from: Fundamentals of Algorithmics (Paperback)
This book is written in a simple style: algoritm class description, related proofs, examples, variations and exemples. Because of this clean approach, you can basically read it in a couple days if you have the necessary background knowledge, and in a couple weeks if not. I strongly recommend this book to everyone who are calling themselves "programers", either graduated or not, it will teach/remind them what are the elegant fundamental algorithmic approches to common problems; it's seems that today's software could use a bit of this elegance. As for all the negative reviews, I'm astonished. I own several books on the subject, and I find this one the easiest to read, no question. It must be some sort of personal vendetta against the author, a failed undegraduate course with this book as teaching material, or some other personal reason; that's probably why this/these person(s) whish(es) to remain anonymous.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Fundamentals of Algorithmics, April 12, 2000
This review is from: Fundamentals of Algorithmics (Paperback)
One of the few books organising algorithms around design techniques instead of application areas (see "Algorithms" from Sedgevick). Though both approachs have pros and cons, I've found the former most convenient for people learning to design algorithms. Many problems admit several solutions depending on the design tecnique involved. This fact is emphasized by the authors.
The book is self-contained, plainly written, so that an undergraduate can read it after taking a prerequisite course on programming.
It's also mathematically rigorous, while mantaining simplicity. This allows analysis of algorithms to be really "analytic" (no more guessing the solution to a recurrence relation).
One main drawback (certainly usual) is the lack of excercise solutions.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great as a supplement or reference, not as an introduction, June 3, 2002
This review is from: Fundamentals of Algorithmics (Paperback)
This is a good book - far better than an average rating of 2 stars
would suggest. However, i think a big reason for such a rating is
that it's supposed to be an introductory textbook (as claimed by the
authors in the preface), and from that point of view, it leaves much
to be desired.
The presentation is such that it can be difficult for first-timers to
follow, and many topics are simply absent, e.g. network flows.
On the other hand, those already familiar with the material will find
it quite readable and handy as a reference or for brushing up.
The authors choose to present algorithms from a design point of view,
ie greedy approach, divide-and-conquer, bactracking, dynamic programming
etc instead of the traditional way of presenting algorithms for solving
a class of problems, e.g searching, sorting, graph algorithms and so on.
While this is good for those who're already familiar with the traditional
approach and also offers a unified view of problem-solving strategies in
Algorithmics, it is decidedly easier for the beginning student to have (e.g)
all sorting algorithms in one place than to discover that they're scattered
across different chapters.
All algorithms are presented in pseudocode, and are thus have no
programming language dependencies. A healthy number of solved examples
have been provided, and unsolved problems are numerous.
In summary, i think this is quite a good book for practitioners, researchers
and those doing an advanced course in Algorithms, whereas it may not be
suitable for an introductory course (except, perhaps, as a supplement).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No