13 ms·

This is an excellent course and helped me get my current job. My background is chemistry/chemical engineering. I had applied for a data scientist position. Pho

This is an excellent course and helped me get my current job. My background is chemistry/chemical engineering. I had applied for a data scientist position. Phone interview included a problem where I was asked about my solution's complexity. I admitted I didn't know about it. Still got called back for an interview on site, but the weekend before I powered through this course. Unsurprisingly, it came up in the on-site and they were really pleased I had learnt about it. I got the job. I also found it useful to implement all the algorithms in Python.

michaelchisari 10y ago
Python is the algorithm king as far as I'm concerned. It really gets out of your way and lets you focus on the abstract nature of what you're trying to accomplish.
- koolba 10y ago
  If Python is the king, C is the court jester juggling knives. Done well it looks amazing, elegant, and efficient, but in the wrong hands you'll lose your hands.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    It also forces you to know what's happening under the hood though. If learning the material comprehensively is your goal I think it's not a bad idea to dig in to a c implementation.
    - michaelchisari 10y ago
      At this point, I would recommend Rust for the "under the hood" part, while forcing you to write safer code.
      - nostrebored 10y ago
        Probably a good idea!
  - apl002 10y ago
    Where is javascript in this medieval court?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - dsacco 10y ago
      JavaScript is the archbishop, evangelizing the holy trinity of React, Node.js and MongoDB.
      - koolba 10y ago
        At least one of those would be on the receiving end of any technology holy war.
      - joatmon-snoo 10y ago
        I think you meant React, Node, Vue, Vanilla, Backbone, Angular, [trails off]
        dylz 10y ago
        Top 1000 javascript libraries of 2016: a year-end roundup
        irrational 10y ago
        They change often enough that it would be better to create the list on a monthly basis.
        Groxx 10y ago
        They're the lesser gods and demons (often swapping places) of the pantheon.
      - kbenson 10y ago
        Somewhat appropriate, as nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
  - icpmacdo 10y ago
    I am slowly working my way through CS50 on EDX and its an interesting experience doing an intro to CS type course in C for sure.
  - kornish 10y ago
    There's a great book title that plays off this idea: "Enough Rope to Shoot Yourself in the Foot: Rules for C and C++ Programming" [0] It's also perhaps the best mixed metaphor I've ever encountered. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Enough-Rope-Shoot-Yourself-Foot/dp/0070296898 https://www.amazon.com/Enough-Rope-Shoot-Yourself-Foot/dp/00...
    - Impossible 10y ago
      I said this by accident in a meeting one time and everyone got a good laugh from it. Must have got it from this book unconsciously.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - vog 10y ago
    While I applaud Python to have established a well-designed[1] layer on top of the math/numeric libraries written in Fortran, C and C++, I hope that one day Rust will smoothen the corners. While Rust might not become a replacement for the Python layer, it may replace the C/C++/Fortran layer with all their speed and low-level optimization, yet provide good (and especially safe!) abstractions on top of that. Currently, people try to use C++ to fill that gap, but I'd love to see Rust's type system, borrow checker and macro system, instead of C++ templates. [1] As opposed to Mathematica, MatLab, etc.
- walshemj 10y ago
  I would have said Fortran is still the King :-)
  - jeremy_wiebe 10y ago
    In college I had to implement all my Data Structures coursework in COBOL. That was...interesting. :-)
- catnaroek 10y ago
  Hardly. How often is it that you can read an uncommented Python program that implements a tricky algorithm, and you can easily recover basic things like loop invariants?
  - yorwba 10y ago
    For that you'd really want something like Dafny https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/dafny-a-language-and-program-verifier-for-functional-correctness/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/dafny-a-lan... where your program doesn't even compile if you don't give it the right invariant.
    - catnaroek 10y ago
      But then there's no such thing as an unannotated program. I'm confident in my ability to prove things the old-fashioned way, using brain, pencil and paper, so I don't see much value in merely having my proofs verified by a machine. If the machine can't contribute to the effort of actually coming up with the proof, it should stay out of the way.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
  I'd disagree. Python abstracts a little too much away, and it's much easier to figure out loop ranges, invariants etc in an algorithm from say Java code. Python works well when you have to convey your algorithm in a nice succinct functional manner, but that's optimizing for cuteness, not understanding.
- GarvielLoken 10y ago
  Common Lisp is the rebel leader, but is hampered by constant infighting.
- ende 10y ago
  Python is a fantastic language for learning algorithms. It's also a good interface for higher performance, lower level systems language libraries. That said, it is certainly worth the effort to learn one of those systems level languages to pair with python. I always say that python is like the English of programming languages; it's an amalgamation of other languages, programming paradigms and a rich set of libraries, and often serves as a 'Common Tongue' to glue disparate processes together. There is an inherit risk to that, though. Because it's so easy to transition between object/procedural/functional modes, because it's so easy to tie together so many different interfaces, because it's so easy to `import everything`... it is often too easy to avoid a proper separation of concerns. The flexibility comes with a disincentive towards discipline. All of the pedantry of systems level language performance and practices aside, even the context switch alone between 'algorithm language' and 'application language' is beneficial to promoting better discipline in both areas.
gech 10y ago
And now in your current job how often are you evaluating the complexity and implementing specialized algorithms?
- tomwphillips 10y ago
  Implementing: never. Evaluating: occasionally. In my opinion, an understanding of data structures is _much_ more useful for a data scientist than algorithms. Why should data scientists know about algorithms? Because data scientists are typically interviewed by computer scientists/software engineers, and that's what they tend to ask. I recently conducted many phone and on site interviews for a data scientist position. I didn't ask about algorithms.
  - willhslade 10y ago
    For software engineers, algorithmic complexity is a good filter for, say, Javascript hackers vs people with a university education in computer science. Just saying.
    - joshwcomeau 10y ago
      And in your mind, "javascript hackers" are worse than "people with a university education in computer science" at doing modern front-end web development? In my experience, building performant web applications is much more about things like reducing bundle size, making sure animations are hardware-accelerated, being smart about _when_ you do complex work... The cost of using an O(n^2) algorithm over an O(n) algorithm will rarely have a tangible impact, since you don't typically deal with item sets that large on the client. Not debating that CS fundamentals are valuable, just that they are _far_ from the most important skillset to have. Give me a JS hacker who understands page load times over a CS grad who writes his own bucket sort algorithm any day.
      - snovv_crash 10y ago
        If the 'javascript hacker' doesn't learn about the difference between iterating through a list and binary searching, and how/when one is better than the other, yes it is a problem. I say this as a self taught programmer who studied a non-CS engineering well after learning about big-O.

michaelchisari 10y ago

Python is the algorithm king as far as I'm concerned. It really gets out of your way and lets you focus on the abstract nature of what you're trying to accomplish.

koolba 10y ago
If Python is the king, C is the court jester juggling knives. Done well it looks amazing, elegant, and efficient, but in the wrong hands you'll lose your hands.
- nostrebored 10y ago
  It also forces you to know what's happening under the hood though. If learning the material comprehensively is your goal I think it's not a bad idea to dig in to a c implementation.
  - michaelchisari 10y ago
    At this point, I would recommend Rust for the "under the hood" part, while forcing you to write safer code.
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      Probably a good idea!
- apl002 10y ago
  Where is javascript in this medieval court?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dsacco 10y ago
    JavaScript is the archbishop, evangelizing the holy trinity of React, Node.js and MongoDB.
    - koolba 10y ago
      At least one of those would be on the receiving end of any technology holy war.
    - joatmon-snoo 10y ago
      I think you meant React, Node, Vue, Vanilla, Backbone, Angular, [trails off]
      - dylz 10y ago
        Top 1000 javascript libraries of 2016: a year-end roundup
        irrational 10y ago
        They change often enough that it would be better to create the list on a monthly basis.
      - Groxx 10y ago
        They're the lesser gods and demons (often swapping places) of the pantheon.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      Somewhat appropriate, as nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.
- icpmacdo 10y ago
  I am slowly working my way through CS50 on EDX and its an interesting experience doing an intro to CS type course in C for sure.
- kornish 10y ago
  There's a great book title that plays off this idea: "Enough Rope to Shoot Yourself in the Foot: Rules for C and C++ Programming" [0] It's also perhaps the best mixed metaphor I've ever encountered. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Enough-Rope-Shoot-Yourself-Foot/dp/0070296898 https://www.amazon.com/Enough-Rope-Shoot-Yourself-Foot/dp/00...
  - Impossible 10y ago
    I said this by accident in a meeting one time and everyone got a good laugh from it. Must have got it from this book unconsciously.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- vog 10y ago
  While I applaud Python to have established a well-designed[1] layer on top of the math/numeric libraries written in Fortran, C and C++, I hope that one day Rust will smoothen the corners. While Rust might not become a replacement for the Python layer, it may replace the C/C++/Fortran layer with all their speed and low-level optimization, yet provide good (and especially safe!) abstractions on top of that. Currently, people try to use C++ to fill that gap, but I'd love to see Rust's type system, borrow checker and macro system, instead of C++ templates. [1] As opposed to Mathematica, MatLab, etc.
walshemj 10y ago
I would have said Fortran is still the King :-)
- jeremy_wiebe 10y ago
  In college I had to implement all my Data Structures coursework in COBOL. That was...interesting. :-)
catnaroek 10y ago
Hardly. How often is it that you can read an uncommented Python program that implements a tricky algorithm, and you can easily recover basic things like loop invariants?
- yorwba 10y ago
  For that you'd really want something like Dafny https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/dafny-a-language-and-program-verifier-for-functional-correctness/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/dafny-a-lan... where your program doesn't even compile if you don't give it the right invariant.
  - catnaroek 10y ago
    But then there's no such thing as an unannotated program. I'm confident in my ability to prove things the old-fashioned way, using brain, pencil and paper, so I don't see much value in merely having my proofs verified by a machine. If the machine can't contribute to the effort of actually coming up with the proof, it should stay out of the way.
kinkrtyavimoodh 10y ago
I'd disagree. Python abstracts a little too much away, and it's much easier to figure out loop ranges, invariants etc in an algorithm from say Java code. Python works well when you have to convey your algorithm in a nice succinct functional manner, but that's optimizing for cuteness, not understanding.
GarvielLoken 10y ago
Common Lisp is the rebel leader, but is hampered by constant infighting.
ende 10y ago
Python is a fantastic language for learning algorithms. It's also a good interface for higher performance, lower level systems language libraries. That said, it is certainly worth the effort to learn one of those systems level languages to pair with python. I always say that python is like the English of programming languages; it's an amalgamation of other languages, programming paradigms and a rich set of libraries, and often serves as a 'Common Tongue' to glue disparate processes together. There is an inherit risk to that, though. Because it's so easy to transition between object/procedural/functional modes, because it's so easy to tie together so many different interfaces, because it's so easy to `import everything`... it is often too easy to avoid a proper separation of concerns. The flexibility comes with a disincentive towards discipline. All of the pedantry of systems level language performance and practices aside, even the context switch alone between 'algorithm language' and 'application language' is beneficial to promoting better discipline in both areas.

gech 10y ago

And now in your current job how often are you evaluating the complexity and implementing specialized algorithms?

tomwphillips 10y ago
Implementing: never. Evaluating: occasionally. In my opinion, an understanding of data structures is _much_ more useful for a data scientist than algorithms. Why should data scientists know about algorithms? Because data scientists are typically interviewed by computer scientists/software engineers, and that's what they tend to ask. I recently conducted many phone and on site interviews for a data scientist position. I didn't ask about algorithms.
- willhslade 10y ago
  For software engineers, algorithmic complexity is a good filter for, say, Javascript hackers vs people with a university education in computer science. Just saying.
  - joshwcomeau 10y ago
    And in your mind, "javascript hackers" are worse than "people with a university education in computer science" at doing modern front-end web development? In my experience, building performant web applications is much more about things like reducing bundle size, making sure animations are hardware-accelerated, being smart about _when_ you do complex work... The cost of using an O(n^2) algorithm over an O(n) algorithm will rarely have a tangible impact, since you don't typically deal with item sets that large on the client. Not debating that CS fundamentals are valuable, just that they are _far_ from the most important skillset to have. Give me a JS hacker who understands page load times over a CS grad who writes his own bucket sort algorithm any day.
    - snovv_crash 10y ago
      If the 'javascript hacker' doesn't learn about the difference between iterating through a list and binary searching, and how/when one is better than the other, yes it is a problem. I say this as a self taught programmer who studied a non-CS engineering well after learning about big-O.