... and, frankly, the science/craft/whatever of developing algorithms has not seen major changes since the publication date (Published: August 18, 1999) that obviate the value of the known text. Yes, Perl has changed; been enhanced; and so on, but the book merely uses Perl as a vehicle for "Mastering Algorithms." Of course, if you find exclusively Perl4 syntax, you'll have to adjust (and I'll have to take my foot from my mouth).
In your shoes, I'd select from among O'Reilly, Amazon (both of which have the book in their current catalogue) or among used book dealers for any edition (if there is more than one).
Updated, to include pub date and sellers -- after doing the minimal googling that OP should have done.
If I've misconstrued your question, my apologies go to all those electrons which were inconvenienced by the creation of this post.
| [reply] |
No, this book is not recent, but it is not Perl 4. It is really Perl 5, probably something like 5.6, not the most up-to-date version, but still a relatively good Perl 5 version.
| [reply] |
You were probably disappointed by calculating shortest path using Floyd-Warshall with perl. It took me several minutes to fix the code, even if I do not use the Graph module at all - I just read the documentation, installed the module and tried several changes. The algorithm remained the same, the only difference was the method name and argument order.
| [reply] |
The Mastering Algorithms book is indeed excellent even if the Perl is a bit old school. I would love to see a new edition not only because of developments within Perl but also because of the many new applications such algorithms could be put to use for today (e.g. cryptography, mapping). I would go as far as saying that a new edition, done properly, could even generate a spike of interest in Perl from developers and startups. | [reply] |
| [reply] |
Yes, this is a great book, I bought it second hand many years after it was published, I don't think there is an updated version (well, this, I am almost sure), and I don't think there is a more up-to-date equivalent.
| [reply] |