My issue with the books is that they're actually quite long winded even by what you'd expect from the tone.
There's some really cool stuff in them, obviously, but I think they're objectively not very good textbooks for any purpose.
Then again I'm coming from a background of physics rather than mathematics so I'm not set out for a real battle of wits when it comes to constructing proofs.
I find the MMIX code less relevant to my line of work now as getting down to machine-level optimization requires a whole new different suite of tools. The ensuing optimizations on modern CPUs seem deviated from what the MMIX code can help.
Knuth's a good, engaging writer, but TAOCP's content and typography are definitely better thought out than the prose.
EDIT: Just remembered a BBC interview with a philosophy professor about Kant. Apparently Kant is criticized for being really verbose. The professor's retort was he sensed Kant had so much to say and so little time to say it that he didn't edit very carefully, giving it a similar kind of bloated, meandering quality. Even so, Kant is held up as one of the GOATs, because in the end it's the content that counts.
And maybe even more importantly, a great collection of problems to work through. I think it is actually an underappreciated text nowadays.
Meandering through topics is good, but he meanders through style as well: sometimes he was in a mathematical mood, sometimes he was feeling more practical. I think it's better to intuit first then formalize, Knuth likes to do these in groups of pairs rather than a pair of groups.
Knuth is not the worst at this, but the lost potential is the greatest in his writing.
It’s a good short story if you’ve got 20min.
I've never read anything that is more precise or intuitive. TAOCP is also pleasant to read.
It's the book that I go back to once a while after being bothered by the sloppiness in the documents and papers and many other written materials consumed everyday. Reading it gives a sense of enlightenment that regardless of all those poor writing, there is hope to reach the clarity that I have the deepest desire for.
Yes, I know those languages didn't exist at the time Knuth was forging his books.
Even that I architect and write software for a living, I don't consider myself an engineer, but a computer scientist. I've studied Computer Science in University, not Engineering. I like to understand how things work, why they work, how would they work if anything would be changed. I like to try, discover and do new things, not new only for me, but things which weren't done previously. And that is impossible without a solid understanding of theoretical principles and continuous learning.
If I wouldn't be into computers, I could see myself as a mathematician, physicist, biologist, doctor, artist or architect but not as an engineer since I do like to go deeply to the root of knowledge, not just apply the said knowledge.
I see a great value in engineering mentality, but it's just not for me.
Except to pass the interview screens at high-profile tech companies?
Like with math, it's easier to learn to solve problems than to learn by heart hundreds of potential problems the teacher might give you on an exam.