4 ms·

Suggested Topics on Data Structures (2016) [pdf]

216 points by yangshun 9y ago

stablemap 9y ago
It looks like this was written by Keith Schwarz: http://www.keithschwarz.com http://www.keithschwarz.com
- apetresc 9y ago
  I suspect Universities themselves, being an abstract concept rather than a living being, don't actually write any of the things attributed to them. The document is hosted as a handout for a Stanford course, I don't know why it would be incorrect to attribute it the way it was.
  - kenshi 9y ago
    I'm guessing stablemap is providing the author for anyone who might be interested in more of their work, rather than as a criticism or correction. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    - apetresc 9y ago
      Haha yup, he's edited his message. Now I just look like a jerk :)
jmiserez 9y ago
Fascinating list, many of these I never heard of in my studies. I especially like the “Why they're worth studying” bits, looks like the prof really cares.
- finnh 9y ago
  The professor's writing style makes the guide enjoyable. It's an interesting topic across the board, but in the wrong hands this PDF could be an awfully dry read. Not so in this case!
gravypod 9y ago
Something I find funny: > Ropes > A Caveat: Ropes are not as complicated as some of the other data structures > on this list and many of the papers about ropes give incorrect information > about the runtime of the various operations on them. If you choose to use this > data structure, we'll expect that you'll put in a significant amount of work > comparing them to other approaches or developing novel ideas. I've tried to study things like Ropes but, for me, it was very complicated. I was interested in them from their usage in Xi. On the other hand different topics in this document were very easy for me to understand (mainly the Levenshtein Automata). Is this just an example of the professor being better suited to understanding Ropes? Does their "caveat" push people from attempting to examine them?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
georgehm 9y ago
The slides for the course (cs166) themselves are a very good read.
- kbenson 9y ago
  I assume you mean the slides for the Spring 2016 class, which can be found on the class website, along with handouts and other supplemental information for each week. [1] 1: http://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs166/cs166.1166/ http://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs166/cs166.1166/
jimsmart 9y ago
Thanks for this: Relaxed AVL trees look useful to me.
purplezooey 9y ago
Ah the Ackerman function. Thanks for the memories.
direengineer 9y ago
Btw, the instructor of this course has a very interesting side project exploring different data structures http://www.keithschwarz.com/interesting/ http://www.keithschwarz.com/interesting/

216 points by yangshun 9y ago

It looks like this was written by Keith Schwarz: http://www.keithschwarz.com http://www.keithschwarz.com

apetresc 9y ago
I suspect Universities themselves, being an abstract concept rather than a living being, don't actually write any of the things attributed to them. The document is hosted as a handout for a Stanford course, I don't know why it would be incorrect to attribute it the way it was.
- kenshi 9y ago
  I'm guessing stablemap is providing the author for anyone who might be interested in more of their work, rather than as a criticism or correction. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - apetresc 9y ago
    Haha yup, he's edited his message. Now I just look like a jerk :)

Fascinating list, many of these I never heard of in my studies. I especially like the “Why they're worth studying” bits, looks like the prof really cares.

finnh 9y ago
The professor's writing style makes the guide enjoyable. It's an interesting topic across the board, but in the wrong hands this PDF could be an awfully dry read. Not so in this case!

gravypod 9y ago

Something I find funny: > Ropes > A Caveat: Ropes are not as complicated as some of the other data structures > on this list and many of the papers about ropes give incorrect information > about the runtime of the various operations on them. If you choose to use this > data structure, we'll expect that you'll put in a significant amount of work > comparing them to other approaches or developing novel ideas. I've tried to study things like Ropes but, for me, it was very complicated. I was interested in them from their usage in Xi. On the other hand different topics in this document were very easy for me to understand (mainly the Levenshtein Automata). Is this just an example of the professor being better suited to understanding Ropes? Does their "caveat" push people from attempting to examine them?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

georgehm 9y ago

The slides for the course (cs166) themselves are a very good read.

kbenson 9y ago
I assume you mean the slides for the Spring 2016 class, which can be found on the class website, along with handouts and other supplemental information for each week. [1] 1: http://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs166/cs166.1166/ http://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs166/cs166.1166/

jimsmart 9y ago

Thanks for this: Relaxed AVL trees look useful to me.

purplezooey 9y ago

Ah the Ackerman function. Thanks for the memories.

direengineer 9y ago

Btw, the instructor of this course has a very interesting side project exploring different data structures http://www.keithschwarz.com/interesting/ http://www.keithschwarz.com/interesting/