On Sunday, July 17, 2016 at 3:45:04 AM UTC+5:30, Shrey Desai wrote: > I have found it slightly frustrating that Python does not have built-in > support for advanced data structures (Linked Lists, Stacks/Queues, BST) in > its distribution. Many computer science students, developers, and software > engineers rely on these data structures; having the data structures be a part > of the distribution and be maintained by the Python community would be > immensely useful. > > Currently, we are required to write our own modules that represent these data > structures and rigorously test/refactor them before we can actually use them. > This gets annoying because instead of spending time USING the "correct" > version of the data structure, we have to spend time creating them in the > first place. > > Programming languages like Java have support for Linked Lists, for example, > which makes it easy to just use it instead of trying to create it over again. > As a computer science undergraduate student, I don't want to spend time > writing the module but instead I want to work with it, play around with it, > and do problems with it. > > I know Python currently has a Queue module, but this can definitely be > expanded. There are other more advanced data structures out there, like AVL > trees, splay trees, and tries, but I think that would be overkilll. Having > these data structures above would be immensely useful. > > I'm looking to create a PEP for this issue and some people that would be > willing to 1) vouch for this idea and 2) co-author the draft. Eventually, we > would be co-developers for the project as well. > > Who's in?
Hi Shrey Your wish and direction is commendable And looks at an important question Do consider however that the boot may well be on the other foot: viz. So “Python does not have advanced data structures… fir students/edu-purposes” may suggest that python should change Or that education should! Some examples of the nature the the fast-shifting ground under our feet: It was important for programmers to know and use registers/instruction-formats etc very effectively at one time. At some time it stopped being relevant. Or card-punches, Or large central ACs, Or tape drives, Or interrupts. Some of these have just died; some remain in specialized places; some are ubiquitous but with enough strong abstractions that vanilla programmers dont ever think of these nowadays The same holds for broad areas Cryptography is where CS started in WWII; vanished thereafter; reappeared in specialized quarters of late Numerical computing was the hi-cathedral for the next few decades By the time I was a student in the 80s it was there but somehow felt old and past-tense. I expect recently instituted courses dont have it; or have it specialized. These shifts are elaborated somewhat more https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2016-June/710678.html and sequel Coming to data structures (and algorithms) yes it (they) are important courses… and widely misunderstood Here is Bob Harper *quoting a developer* everyone knows that algorithms as we learned them at school are irrelevant to practice." https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/papers/secp/secp.pdf (pg 2) [Harper is a senior respected faculty at Carnegie Mellon] I think the same applies to data structures with redoubled force: Most of what is called data structures — linked lists etc — should really be called *storage structures* ie How to survive and do useful work when your system/software is highly crippling. Greenspun's 10th law: Any sufficiently complicated C program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of Lisp. If you understand that python is in a sense closer to Lisp than to C, maybe you see that there are broadly two choices - Traditional CS-edu view... C, C++, Java, OO-gook, data-structures, algorithms etc where the basic philosophy is Crippling is a way of life; Be Brave! And hobble more vigorously!‘ - The alternative CS view as understood by Harper, MIT and other progressive places embracing the ‘functional’ style (stupid word if you ask me) The idea being to throw out 70-80 % of traditional CS from the curriculum and get students doing good stuff much faster by putting them on a *different* learning curve. That this stuff is a bit bleeding edge can be seen in the fact that ACM curriculum has started embracing “functional” only in 2013 — ie 50 years after Lisp: http://blog.languager.org/2015/06/functional-programming-moving-target.html Sorry for a ramble. Summary: Yes the languages we use to teach need to be rethought So does our teaching ;-) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
