You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Risto_Saarelma comments on Mistakes repository - Less Wrong Discussion

24 Post author: Dorikka 09 September 2013 03:32AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (192)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 12 September 2013 09:31:43PM *  2 points [-]

Looking at data structures more algebraically, as abstract types characterized by their introduction and elimination forms is another topic that's present in some standard CS sequences and can make one a better programmer. This breaks the habit of projecting intended interpretation of the data to its representation in computer memory, giving more freedom to design data structures for sparse data, that don't look like the data (which is their interpretation), but play its role (for example, binary decision diagrams). This is related to the statement/model distinction in logic, but the point of view of type theory is intuitively closer to programming practice. (SICP goes some of the way in this direction, but not in sufficient detail.)

A standard treatment of (in particular) this aspect of type theory is [Pierce] or [Harper], which would go easier after something like [Girard, Lafont & Taylor]. Related intuitions can be developed by learning a language like Haskell [Lipovaca] and some category theory [Lawvere & Schanuel]. References:

Comment author: Risto_Saarelma 13 September 2013 10:04:37AM 0 points [-]

Seconding the type theory recommendation. The formal CS education I had contained almost nothing about this, so it was all independent studying from textbooks for me anyway.