
Stanford CS Education Library (2001) - SE_Student
http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/
======
ChuckMcM
Ah yes, when the only two languages that mattered were C and perl :-).

I find it helpful to maintain perspective with "CS" then and now. Many older
engineering professions have a 'base class' (to abuse the phrase) and then
many sub-classes. For example, there are the basics for Electrical
Engineering, but then there are generally specialization areas where people
can spend their entire careers (RF, Power, Digital Logic, Electromagnetics,
etc).

And back at the turn of the century there was pretty much only one "CS"
discipline, it was heavy on math, data structures, and language and systems
design. The more informal sub-areas were probably OS programming (often called
Systems programming), language design, and "Data processing" (which subsumes
data base design and use). We have since added many more, networks, web
applications, and embedded systems to name a few.

We also have "trade" programmers (some folks call them 'CRUD'[1] programmers
but that seems a bit derogatory to me) that is more closely associated to
Electricians than say Electrical Engineers. They play a vital role in
businesses everywhere but realistically don't need all the Math and such that
typical CS programs require to do a good job.

[1] CRUD - Create Read Update Delete type applications
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Create,_read,_update_and_delet...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Create,_read,_update_and_delete))

------
every1isbias
Dead Link Checker:

whole site: [http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/](http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/)
100% scanned - 116/116 URLs checked, 98 OK, 18 failed

root page: [http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/](http://cslibrary.stanford.edu/)
100% scanned - 28/28 URLs checked, 24 OK, 4 failed

18 dead links on single-page site with 4 dead on the homepage. I'm curious
what's the threshold of dead links for considering a site "abandoned."

~~~
bitlax
FWIW the Binky Pointer videos are available on Youtube.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i49_SNt4yfk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i49_SNt4yfk)

------
acbart
Why is this being posted? I suppose it's interesting from a historical
perspective, for what is available. This is so far removed from modern CS Ed
that it's an interesting little time capsule, I guess.

~~~
linguae
Pointers, linked lists, and trees are fundamental concepts. Even though many
CS programs have moved away from C and C++ for their intro-level courses,
there is still a need to teach how dynamically-allocated data structures are
implemented in memory. Even if beginning CS students are not exposed to
pointers in their first or second CS class, they will be exposed to pointers
eventually in many CS programs, either when they take a course on basic
computer organization and assembly, or when they take a course on systems
programming.

Also, Stanford's guides are very well written. I remember learning pointers
from these guides when I was learning C nearly 15 years ago as a high school
senior. I still have the copy of K&R that I bought back then; it is very worn
out now.

~~~
acbart
I mean, obviously. No one's going to seriously advocate removing systems
programming from the core introductory sequence of undergraduate CS degrees.
The learning objectives are still relevant, I meant the materials themselves
are old.

------
dfeojm-zlib
There oughta be a visual/conceptual explanation textbook for Rust borrowing,
traits and types because some of it is confusing and/or ambiguous.

