To compare to one of those advanced mathematics textbooks you're making an example of, D&F is one of the canonical texts for an introductory graduate algebra course, but it is one of the least user-friendly works I've come across on the topic (I own 3-4 other graduate algebra texts at various levels, printed in various decades, and I found it probably most difficult to wade through, of all of them).
Note that this is merely an example and not a personal attack on the authors or something. Having to re-read a chunk of text 5-10 times on average to extract pertinent information is something I really don't enjoy; I don't usually have to do it with journal/conference papers (usually 2x is enough to grasp the details of the idea being presented) or with other textbooks.
I would rather the information being presented be somewhat 'spaced out' to give my brain time to process it without having to go back over it. Having to re-read a denser text takes rather longer, imo, than having to read text with slightly less dense content just once or twice.
So, yes, it is likely a matter of taste. But my point was, I suppose, that information presented in a dense manner takes rather longer to digest.
Beej (despite numerous anecdotes and so on) manages to present his information in a straightforward fashion that doesn't require multiple readings to grasp. Algebra could also be presented in a similar (if probably less jokey) fashion. A lower amount of entropy per sentence means I have to do less work just to get through the explanations and can spend more time on working through the examples. Given that the time I have to spend studying is finite, a more direct approach to explaining material before letting a student practice does seem more efficient.
That's why I like this tutorial. It doesn't take itself seriously, which is rather more approachable than some works, and the pertinent information is directly presented but not in such a way that I have to re-re-re...-re read to grasp the details.
Comments
To compare to one of those advanced mathematics textbooks you're making an example of, D&F is one of the canonical texts for an introductory graduate algebra course, but it is one of the least user-friendly works I've come across on the topic (I own 3-4 other graduate algebra texts at various levels, printed in various decades, and I found it probably most difficult to wade through, of all of them).
Note that this is merely an example and not a personal attack on the authors or something. Having to re-read a chunk of text 5-10 times on average to extract pertinent information is something I really don't enjoy; I don't usually have to do it with journal/conference papers (usually 2x is enough to grasp the details of the idea being presented) or with other textbooks.
I would rather the information being presented be somewhat 'spaced out' to give my brain time to process it without having to go back over it. Having to re-read a denser text takes rather longer, imo, than having to read text with slightly less dense content just once or twice.
So, yes, it is likely a matter of taste. But my point was, I suppose, that information presented in a dense manner takes rather longer to digest.
Beej (despite numerous anecdotes and so on) manages to present his information in a straightforward fashion that doesn't require multiple readings to grasp. Algebra could also be presented in a similar (if probably less jokey) fashion. A lower amount of entropy per sentence means I have to do less work just to get through the explanations and can spend more time on working through the examples. Given that the time I have to spend studying is finite, a more direct approach to explaining material before letting a student practice does seem more efficient.
That's why I like this tutorial. It doesn't take itself seriously, which is rather more approachable than some works, and the pertinent information is directly presented but not in such a way that I have to re-re-re...-re read to grasp the details.
authors struggle for correctness and preciseness of thought and words; very few achieve clarity of either.
there are authors whose works demonstrate possibility of high-quality textbooks in absense of any "qutesy" or other noise.
your and GP's post show that different information passing styles suit different people differently.