My review of the Daylight-Knuth booklet (mentioned in my previous message) suggests some of what Knuth was unhappy about in the discussion in that booklet. See the second column of journal page 72 (4th page of the PDF) at http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2014/01/man2014010069.pdf Reading the booklet, it seemed less about history by practitioners versus by historians than about including technical content or not. Not quoted in my review, but stated by Knuth in the booklet is his belief that Campbell-Kelly advises his student to "concentrate on contexts, and to write for a non-technical audience, rather than to also give some depth." The booklet's entire discussion of this is on pages 74 through 77. Knuth states that he wants breadth and depth in science history (which he asserts is still the case in math history).