Flesh Out Data Structures & Algorithms

Currently the only real data structures & algorithms course is Roughgarden's Algorithms course, which is light on data structures. It is also, according to the very popular Princeton algorithms course's FAQ on Coursera, not enough by itself and more on the mathematical side.

I would suggest adding the two Princeton courses prior to the Roughgarden course to really flesh out this fairly important bit of knowledge, or consider adding in OpenDSA (an interactive and comprehensive textbook) or Berkley's CS61B

[waciumawanjohi]

@Andreilg This is a good collection of high quality resources. It now falls to us to determine which are sufficient for a student. I think you would agree that not every student needs to take all 4 courses.

OSSU uses the CS2013 for curricular guidance. (A little more about that here)

CS2013 has a section on the curricular expectations of Discrete Structure instruction. (Page 77 of the doc's numbering, page 79 of the PDF) Note: the section "Core Tier-1, Core Tier-2, Elective: What These Terms Mean, What is Required" (pdf page 32) is useful for understanding the recs.

How do the recommendations in CS2013 affect your suggestion above?

@waciumawanjohi I have not taken all of these courses as of yet (I am currently going through OpenDSA and CS61B) so I am not qualified to say which fits OSSU better. I was merely presenting some other resources I think could help flesh out the current offering.

However, a safe suggestion would be the Princeton Algorithms course (Parts 1 & 2) followed by the Roughgarden course since Princeton's course is highly regarded and states itself that it is complementary with Roughgarden's.

[Alaharon123]

It's worth noting that Stanford is one of the case studies in CS2013 so we can actually get some help from that. Assuming that we're trying to cover the Algorithms knowledge area here, CS 161 doesn't cover the following:

• The entirety of Basic Automata, Computability and Complexity (they cover it in CS 103, their Discrete Math class. Dunno if MIT's course covers it or not)
• Over half of Fundamental Data Structures and Algorithms. If we assume they're covering just tier one topics in this course, just under half of tier one and all of tier two. They cover it mostly in their CS 106B course with a little in CS 103.

We'd need someone who's already learned Data Structures to look at MIT 6.042J to see if it picks up the slack that Stanford CS 161 is missing and if not, what material OSSU does not cover.

[Alaharon123]

Alright, I've taken a close look at CS2013 and we're essentially missing a course to be equivalent to CS 106B (plus a little of CS 103, but we should be able to find a course that covers all of what we're missing in one course). The following are the CS2013 Knowledge Areas that should be covered. Three out of four are what OP is referring to.

1. AL/Fundamental Data Structures and Algorithms (CS 161 only covers about half)
2. AL/Basic Automata, Computability and Complexity (I don't think this is covered elsewhere in the core curriculum?)
3. PL/Object-Oriented Programming (Programming Languages is intended to serve as reinforcement, not to teach it for the first time)
4. SDF (Software Development Fundamentals. Everything not covered in How to Design Programs and MIT 6.0001. Much of this is what OP is referring to)

Princeton's course (by itself) isn't a good option because it assumes that you've taken a Java-based intro course rather than How to Design Programs. I don't think OpenDSA is a great option either because it's moreso intended for use as a textbook than for self-learners. I'm not sure how good it would be for the task of self-learning; it probably takes the more is better model so that instructors can pick out what they want. CS 61B seems like a good option at a glance assuming that How to Design Programs is sufficient preparation and it complements CS 161 as well as we need it to. Another option could be WPI's CS 2102 followed by Princeton's course although we still need someone to go through WPI's course and make sure it works well for self-learning. The advantage of it though is that it's actually intended to continue on from How to Design Programs and it brings those ideas into object-oriented programming. WPI operates on a quarter schedule so the course isn't as long as some other courses on the curriculum. There are probably other good options too; the primary purpose of this comment is to say that on a CS2013 level, OP is correct and we are missing a course. @waciumawanjohi Should I make a Request For Comment post?

[aryzach]

"Princeton's course (by itself) isn't a good option because it assumes that you've taken a Java-based intro course rather than How to Design Programs. "

I haven't take the Princeton course, but the old course we had assumed that you've programmed before from HtDP, but then throws Java code at you without teaching you anything about it. I think this approach is good, and gives people a chance to learn a language on the fly, or at least the parts that they need to know about for the given task / education goals.

Has anybody taken the princeton course to see if it is comparable to our old Software Construction class? At least comparable with how much you actually need to know Java before starting?

[ola-sk]

Hey, since I remember some considerations about creating along the curriculum which has not necessarily free-only courses included, I'd be interested in opinions about how something like https://www.edx.org/micromasters/ucsandiegox-algorithms-and-data-structures goes along the rest of the curriculum if one aims at more data science related knowledge of algorithms. I've copied "what you'll learn" and "syllabus" sections from all of the courses in the micromasters for a quick comparison here. Thank you in advance.

[m4salah]

what about Algorithm and Data structure Specialization on Coursera by UCSanDiego ?

[Alaharon123]

Those appear to be alternatives to Stanford's course rather than a course to fill the gap before Stanford

[m4salah]

Those appear to be alternatives to Stanford's course rather than a course to fill the gap before Stanford

what is the gap exactly the prerequisite for those course and stanford course is discrete math and programming language or am i miss something ?

[ola-sk]

@Alaharon123 You're right. I don't know yet how or in which point does it play the role as some prerequisite to any class on algorithms or advanced data structures from MIT specifically, but there is a series of two courses on Automata, Computability, and Complexity and Computation theory from MIT.

As I have found basic data structures are taught together with introductory level algorithms in MIT's 6.006 Introduction to Algorithms. This course is the first part of a three-course sequence.

The sequence continues in 6.046J Design and Analysis of Algorithms.

The third in a sequence is 6.854J / 18.415J Advanced Algorithms

The second course in the above algorithms sequence serves as a prerequisite for the 6.851 Advanced Data Structures.

[Alaharon123]

@mohamedspicer Read the whole thread

@ola-sk A required Theory of Computation course is probably more hardcore than we need. For example, Williams College is in cs2013 as an example school and they have a Theory of Computation course and it doesn't cover much of the core knowledge areas aside from this Basic Automata, Computability and Complexity. They say right after that that they're thinking they should make that course an elective and put this stuff into a new Discrete Math course alongside the rest of the curriculum for that course (although they didn't actually follow through on that, which is interesting).

6.006 does look like a course to consider to fulfill the gap this issue is about. It seems to cover a large amount of the first two of #664 (comment)

[Alaharon123]

Gonna post another suggestion here. Going with Princeton's Algorithms course, we could replace Intro CS with Princeton's Computer Science: Programming with a Purpose and Computer Science: Algorithms, Theory, and Machines as a prerequisite.

Pros:

• Covers pretty much exactly what we need.
• Works well as a survey course, which is the goal of Intro CS

Cons:

• We don't know the course's quality
• It is a university course like 6.0001 and cs50 so it's hard and may require looking at outside resources
• You'd be learning Java before How to Design Programs (HtDP) when HtDP is ideally supposed to lead into Java as outlined in Developing Developers
• Math-heavy according to this Reddit comment (although it only requires high school math probably to the level of pre-calculus, possibly even only algebra 2)

2. AL/Basic Automata, Computability and Complexity (I don't think this is covered elsewhere in the core curriculum?)

This is covered in Theory of Computation in OSSU already. As an aside, I've gone through a decent chunk of those videos and I much prefer Theory of Computation from Professor Harry Porter (yes, that's his name). I can vouch for his quality in pretty much all of his videos, he's a goldmine of information. He also goes through the Sipser book in the same order so he's basically a much better version of the book.

I don't think OpenDSA is a great option either because it's moreso intended for use as a textbook than for self-learners. I'm not sure how good it would be for the task of self-learning; it probably takes the more is better model so that instructors can pick out what they want.

It's definitely a lot of content but honestly it's interactive models and mid-chapter exercises lend itself very well to self-learning. My teacher assigned it in it's entirety so we're reading it front to back in order in class.

CS 61B seems like a good option at a glance assuming that How to Design Programs is sufficient preparation and it complements CS 161 as well as we need it to.

Yea, honestly why don't we just use CS 61B? It seems to be what we want right? I mentioned I was going through the course but I didn't have the time to progress far so I can't vouch for it, but it seems like it's fully available to the public unlike other the other CS 61 classes.

Going with Princeton's Algorithms course, we could replace Intro CS with Princeton's Computer Science: Programming with a Purpose and Computer Science: Algorithms, Theory, and Machines as a prerequisite.

I still really think we should have the Princeton Algorithms course (Parts 1 & 2) followed by the Roughgarden course as mandatory for a full coverage of algorithms from different angles. They're clearly complementary to each other. And probably CS 61B before it.

Those two courses seem like they'd be very interesting introductions for CS but I'm not sure since I haven't taken them.

[kishvanchee]

• CS61A IIRC has all materials available for public. This would make a great intro course.

• CS61B spring 2018 version has the gradescope also available for the public last I checked. I think this will be useful for grading oneself on the assignments. CS61B uses its own online text and also references Algorithms by Sedgewick.

• @Alaharon123 I have gone through the 2 princeton courses that you have linked. I can vouch that the quality is very high. The quality of the books is also very high. Additionally, for the courses we have a booksite which has a short version of the textbook itself, many textbook problems (and solutions for many) and additional exercises too. The only con I found is the similar to the reddit comment - it approaches CS/programming from a science/engineering/applied math perspective than from a programmer's perspective. You can expect a lot of questions trying to implement mathematical formulae (which I'm not saying is bad, it does make you think) but it will be very abstract for many people.

For anyone starting out CS/programming, personally I suggest the following sequence of courses - Intro to CS -> Data Structures -> Intro to Systems. I have found HtDP to be a good resource, but it gets tedious when you continue to go through it. I think HtDP would serve well with its successor PAPL.

• CS61A -> CS61B -> CS61C / CSAPP from CMU (15213)

• Princeton Intro -> Princeton Algorithms -> CSAPP from CMU (15213)

To follow up with algorithms, I think the stanford course would do quite well after CS61B / Princeton Algorithms course. A firm grounding on data structures would help in getting more out of the Algorithms course.

An excerpt from the Algorithms book by Sedgewick

Context The book is intended to follow our introductory text, An Introduction to Programming in Java: An Interdisciplinary Approach, which is a broad introduction to the field. Together, these two books can support a two- or three-semester introduction to computer science that will give any student the requisite background to successfully address computation in any chosen field of study in science, engineering, or the social sciences.The starting point for much of the material in the book was the Sedgewick series of Al-gorithms books. In spirit, this book is closest to the first and second editions of that book, but this text benefits from decades of experience teaching and learning that material. Sedgewick’s current Algorithms in C/C++/Java, Third Edition is more appropriate as a reference or a text for an advanced course; this book is specifically designed to be a textbook for a one-semester course for first- or second-year college students and as a modern introduction to the basics and a reference for use by working programmers.

• @Andreilg thank you for mentioning the TOC resource. It seem wonderful companion to the Sipser book.

[Alaharon123]

This is covered in Theory of Computation in OSSU already.

That's in Advanced CS where you only need to take a subset of the courses. It does cover the material, but in significantly more depth. For example, in the Princeton sequence, pretty much all that needs to be covered is in weeks 4-6 of Computer Science: Algorithms, Theory, and Machines and Regular Expressions part of week 5 and Intractability part of week 6 of Algorithms, Part II

Yea, honestly why don't we just use CS 61B?

Indeed. When there's a Request for Comment, that will be one of the options presented in the body text.

I still really think we should have the Princeton Algorithms course (Parts 1 & 2) followed by the Roughgarden course as mandatory for a full coverage of algorithms from different angles. They're clearly complementary to each other. And probably CS 61B before it.

Can you elaborate further on why you'd have both 61B and these two other courses? Wouldn't 61B have a lot of overlap with them?

I think HtDP would serve well with its successor PAPL.

Worth noting that FunctionalCS has links to lectures for Brown CS 0190 (besides for the already freely available homeworks and labs), which covers PAPL and only requires a subset of HtDP as preparation.