Sabino Chavez-Cerda has restated a common observation:
> Although some NR subroutines may have some problems, many others
> are well and accurate.
The authors of NR have a charming and lucid writing style. It gives
one the impression that the entire topic of numerical computation is
easy. As one reads NR, one also gains the impression that both the
reader and the authors understand the material completely.
Unfortunately, none of this is true.
It is precisely because of the conspiracy of this seductive writing
style, and the mixed quality of the work it so pleasingly exposes,
that a neophyte, at whom the book is consciously aimed, is likely to
be led astray. An expert can separate the wheat from the chaff, but
then an expert wouldn't be using NR for a textbook.
This will continue to be true so long as the authors of NR pursue
overly-simple solutions to complex problems, or continue to describe
methods that have been obsolete for decades. My own experience, as
a result of exchange of several letters with one of the authors of
NR (concerning MEDFIT) is that this situation is unlikely to change.
The upshot of that exchange was that I became convinced that that
author never understood the faulty mathematical foundation of the
algorithm, even after four careful explanations.
Chavez-Cerda's observation, and other factors described above, are
reasons both to avoid and to admire NR.
--
What fraction of Americans believe | Van Snyder
Wrestling is real and NASA is fake? | [log in to unmask]
Any alleged opinions are my own and have not been approved or disapproved
by JPL, CalTech, NASA, Dan Goldin, Bill Clinton, the Pope, or anybody else.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|