Reddit reviews Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs (Prentice-Hall Series in Automatic Computation)
We found 14 Reddit comments about Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs (Prentice-Hall Series in Automatic Computation). Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Off the top of my head:
Point of recursion is not to be faster ... the point is that there are huge group of tasks which is obviously recursive and doing it iteratively means massive waste of time and loosing clarity of code.
Let's say I was writing json_diff (it is in PyPI) ... comparing two arbitrary json files. You have to go recursive there or you go mad. Various strategical tasks (examples could be The Problem of Eight Queens, ... get http://www.amazon.com/dp/0130224189 from your local library).
Oldie, but
Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs
http://www.amazon.com/Algorithms-Structures-Prentice-Hall-Automatic-Computation/dp/0130224189
I noticed "Data Structures and Algorithms in Java" in the upper left. Don't know if it's any good. I'm an embedded software engineer using C & (a little) assembly. Only Java for me is poured into a cup.
ORLY?
So I am more of a book guy these days. I found Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs by Niklaus Wirth to be pretty solid. For something a bit more contemporary Introduction to Algorithms by Cormen, Leiserson, Rivest and Stein is a very good textbook. If you're into math and learn best from repetition I'd suggest The Art of Programming Vol 1 by Knuth as well.
The issue I have with a lot of online content is the economics of the Internet are such that its not profitable to go in-depth, so its definitely worth paring online courses(whether they're from an accredited university or not) with a textbook or two. You might even want to crawl down the rabbit hole further and dig into the camps of mathematics where these concepts derive like Queue Theory or Set Theory. If your the type of person who gets the most out of things by tracing concepts to their roots digging into the maths helps a ton.
Some books are not interesting. There are certainly other books on this topic; this ancient classic helped me a lot when I was beginner.
> My reading of it was more along the lines of: your sensory input are not you, and you should not cling to them, the self is always changing, so you shouldn't expect yourself to be reborn as the exact same person in your next life. This is a far cry from "you, as a discrete "self", do not really exist"
I think you half-understood. If your self is always changing, in what capacity does your self exist at all? The self that you associate with "you", in the next instant, will be utterly different; so what is being preserved? What indelible "self-hood" is being passed along? If I build a sand castle, then knock it down and build a new one, and then knock it down and build a third one, and so on, in what sense can you say that the original castle remains?
> I believe that i have a point of focus different from my brain (information source/depository), because even if a computer could store all the information in my brain, there'd still need to be someone/something browsing and calling up certain bits of information for it to do what it does.
Not necessarily; automation is the heart and soul (as it were) of computing. Google has programs that scour billions of webpages, collating and indexing the data, and there is nobody on the other end dictating precisely what it must do or how it must accomplish it. What you've described is a data structure, which is only half the utility of computers; algorithms + data structures = programs.
> I find it hard to believe that we have abundant evidence that mind is inextricable from matter. I suppose once we admit (which we must) that energy is just free flowing matter it gets easier.
(Be careful here, "energy" reeks of woo-woo.) If I have a thought, or a feeling, there is a corresponding event in my neurology; science is even to the point that we can sometimes tell what you're thinking about with just an MRI. We have no examples of something being thought or felt, and being unable to connect it with neurological activity.
We might not entirely understand how a brain works, but I don't know how a car works; suggesting that there are non-physical components to the mind is like suggesting that a car can run without turning on its engine, and we've never observed that to be the case.
CS luminary Niklaus Wirth thinks so much so that he wrote a book titled "Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs"
Niklaus and I agree on this :)
Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs
First of all, thanks for you answer.
For example I have a python object containing 5 attributes.
attr1, attr2, attr3, attr4, attr4, attr5
Some of them are Integeter, some of them dates and some of them Strings. For example I'd like a function that returns me all objects based on criteria
attr1 > 10 && attr3 = 'randomString'
Would a list of Dicts be faster or a list of objects. Also if you happen to know any good book that explains this stuff it would be awesome.
Something like this one? https://www.amazon.com/Algorithms-Structures-Prentice-Hall-Automatic-Computation/dp/0130224189
My dad was an lecturer at Data General and he borrowed a book on BASIC for me - no idea what it was called.
Aside from that one of the first serious books I read was Niklaus Wirth's Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs - it was a first year course book at University so there would have been quite a few others (most of which I've forgotten) but another memorable one was Clocksin and Mellish's Programming in Prolog
"Algortihms + Data Structures = Programs"
There are books for different programming languages.
Also, check out MITs web site. All of their courses are on line for free.
Entrepreneur Reading List
Computer Science Grad School Reading List
Video Game Development Reading List
Algorithms + Data Structures = Programs
https://www.amazon.com/Algorithms-Structures-Prentice-Hall-Automatic-Computation/dp/0130224189