I find it helpful to maintain perspective with "CS" then and now. Many older engineering professions have a 'base class' (to abuse the phrase) and then many sub-classes. For example, there are the basics for Electrical Engineering, but then there are generally specialization areas where people can spend their entire careers (RF, Power, Digital Logic, Electromagnetics, etc).
And back at the turn of the century there was pretty much only one "CS" discipline, it was heavy on math, data structures, and language and systems design. The more informal sub-areas were probably OS programming (often called Systems programming), language design, and "Data processing" (which subsumes data base design and use). We have since added many more, networks, web applications, and embedded systems to name a few.
We also have "trade" programmers (some folks call them 'CRUD'[1] programmers but that seems a bit derogatory to me) that is more closely associated to Electricians than say Electrical Engineers. They play a vital role in businesses everywhere but realistically don't need all the Math and such that typical CS programs require to do a good job.
[1] CRUD - Create Read Update Delete type applications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Create,_read,_update_and_delet...)
whole site: http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/ 100% scanned - 116/116 URLs checked, 98 OK, 18 failed
root page: http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/ 100% scanned - 28/28 URLs checked, 24 OK, 4 failed
18 dead links on single-page site with 4 dead on the homepage. I'm curious what's the threshold of dead links for considering a site "abandoned."
Also, Stanford's guides are very well written. I remember learning pointers from these guides when I was learning C nearly 15 years ago as a high school senior. I still have the copy of K&R that I bought back then; it is very worn out now.
