8 ms·
It's why I'm liking the Stanford Algorithms course[1] being taught by Tim Roughgarden: it's all pseudocode. I thought about taking the Princeton one being taugh
by dmarusic16 13y ago
It's why I'm liking the Stanford Algorithms course[1] being taught by Tim Roughgarden: it's all pseudocode. I thought about taking the Princeton one being taught by Bob Sedgewick (author of the book you're linking to), but I don't really know Java very well and don't have a pressing need to learn it right away. The pseudocode approach has so far been great to get this self-taught programmer thinking at a higher level.
[1]: https://class.coursera.org/algo-004/ https://class.coursera.org/algo-004/
- anuragramdasan 13y agoThe Tim Roughgarden course is Analysis of Algorithms, and hence it deals a great deal with the complexity and mathematics with the algorithm and leaves implementation only to the pseudocode level while Bob Sedgewicks Algorithms course is more related to explanation and implementation of the algorithms, hence the dependency on language. I've signed up for both and pretty fun both seem to me.
- canistr 13y agoI preferred Bob Sedgewick's because of the emphasis on coding techniques which ultimately proved to be much useful for coding interviews. Having taken a course similar to Analysis of Algorithms, I felt the strong emphasis on the theoretical aspects of Big Oh to be cumbersome and did not contribute as directly to my ability to answer technical questions as compared to Sedgewick's approach which covers examples of sorting through animations and looking primarily at his Java code.
- mbroberg 13y agoI started taking Bob Sedgewick's class and like it so far. https://www.coursera.org/course/algs4partI https://www.coursera.org/course/algs4partI