>>47
Only rarely, and only in advanced, specialized subjects that were essentially perfected long ago, so no new developments have been made since. Typically there aren't enough qualified authors *or* students of the subject to make writing new textbooks profitable. For instance, Hartshorne is still considered the standard reference for beginning algebraic geometry, even though it's 30 years old. But this isn't because Hartshorne was some staggering genius and wrote "The" algebraic geometry book. He just wrote a very good book at a time when deveelopment of the material covered was over, and noone has felt the need to bother with anything different.
On the other hand, I am totally sure that 99.9% of textbooks used in undergrad or beginning grad courses were published in the last 5 years. I'll bet your calc book was published the year before you used it, even though the actual math contained in it is centuries old. Noone would argue today that students should learn calculus from Newton's or Leibniz' or Cauchy's original works, even though these men were 20 times the geniuses that Sussman is.
tl;dr: WRONG, FAGGOT