Principles of Compiler Design v/s Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools by Aho, Ullman

Now for a student who is trying to master the subject of "Compiler Design" which book should he/she follow (written by Aho, Ullman)?

---

1) Principles of Compiler Design By Aho Ullman (1977)

I find that the used copies of these text is still available online. Is it so that this particular edition inspite of being old is in great demand.

---

2) Compilers: Principles, Techniques and Tools (2nd edition) by Aho, Ullman, Sethi (2006)

---

I would like to know which one would be more suitable for a novice student having knowledge of only automata theory. Which book has a more lucid language? Which one is more preferable for a student performing self-study. I wanted to ask this question because in this answer it is said that older editions of few texts are sometimes better. So it is always better to have a good guidance before diving into a subject learning.

---

EDIT:

Here the question asks whether "the two volume books are more advanced or complete than the dragon book.Is the dragon book supposed to replace the two-volume books? Are the two-volume books outdated or still very relevant?" The book which is being referred to as "two volume book" is different from the book marked as (1) in my question.

Now I am asking specifically which one among the two books which are referred by me are more easy to read? Which has a more lucid language.In this answer here they say that the automata book by Ullman in the newer editions have changed the elegance of the actual text. Many important portions have been removed and at portions it lacks clarity. Now my question is which among the two books are better or are they equivalent? I had difficulty in following the second edition of the automata book so I felt like asking it here, such that before I begin, I am guided properly.

To learn the basics an old book does not matter, because foundations should remain the same, but I want to read those foundations in an elegant manner, without being puzzled by unclear or in-depth explanation of the same.(which at times happen if a new co-author is introduced)