Some impressions on Stanford’s Automata and Compilers online courses

Over two months ago Stanford opened first edition of online courses on Automata and Compilers (see this post). I’ve participated in both. These courses cover basics of each discipline and assume no previous knowledge of the subject. Now the courses are over and it’s time to share some impressions.

Automata course was six weeks long. It consisted of lectures and so-called homeworks, which are quizzes that should be taken every week. There were some optional programming assignments, but they didn’t affect the final score. The topics covered were: finite automata (deterministic, non-deterministic), regular expressions, context-free grammars and languages, Turing machines, decidability and finally P and NP problems. The course closely follows the book “Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation” by John Hopcroft, Rajeev Motwani and Jeffrey Ullman. This shouldn’t come as big surprise, since the course is lectured by Jeffrey Ullman, one of the authors. For the first three weeks this course very closely followed Compilers, as both discussed automata, regular languages and context-free grammars. I initially enjoyed Automata course a lot, despite lectures being a bit boring. I just read the book and then skimmed through the lecture slides. Sadly the last two weeks of the course were extremely hard to follow. Lectures were rushed and impossible for me to comprehend. Reading the book didn’t help a lot, so I didn’t understand much of decidability, P and NP problems. That said, I’m still very happy with this course, since automata and context-free languages were top priority for me. Keep also in mind that this is very subjective opinion of mine. Reading posts in the course forums I saw that there were really mixed opinions. Some people complained about the lectures being hard to follow, but others praised them for being interesting.

Compilers course took 10 weeks and was much more demanding. It covered theory of lexical analysis using automata, top-down parsing using recursive descent algorithm, bottom-up parsing using LL(1), SLR, and LR algorithms, semantic analysis, operational semantics, code generation, optimizations and garbage collection. Believe me, that’s a lot of theory! In contrast to Automata course, it was all presented in very accessible and interesting way. Each week contained up to 3 hours of lectures and a theoretical quiz covering presented material. There were also four programming assignments which required to implement four different parts of the compiler: lexical analyser (a.k.a. lexer), parser, semantic analyser and code generator. First two exercises relied on existing tools for generating lexers and parsers. The language implemented was COOL – Classroom Object-Oriented Language. I consider programming assignments to be demanding, especially the last two. Third took me about 25 hours to complete. I didn’t manage to finish the fourth one, but I’m still satisfied, since I’m interested mostly in the front-end parts of the compiler (type checking especially). The best thing about Compilers course is that it was motivating. It encouraged me to finally read some chapters from the Dragon Book and “Engineering a Compiler”. Which reminds me that I promised to write more about compiler books.

The Dragon Book turned out to be surprisingly interesting. It is verbose and very dry, so it’s not suitable for reading from cover to cover. Nevertheless, if you have a general idea of what is going on in the compiler and need details on some particular algorithm this is an invaluable resource. In short: bad for introductory text, perfect for reference.

“Engineering a Compiler, 2nd edition” is different. It is very accessible comparing to the Dragon Book. In every chapter the reader is given a clear outline of what will be done and rationale why some particular theory is needed. This greatly helps to understand what’s going on in each phase of compilation. At the end of each chapter there’s an overview of literature on a given topic, so it’s also a great starting point for deeper research into each subject. Thus I think that book makes a very good introductory text. I wholeheartedly recommend it.

I haven’t read Appel’s “Modern Compiler Implementation in C” so I really can’t tell much about it. Hopefully I will find some time during the summer holiday to read the chapter about Hindley-Milner type inference algorithm.

Coursera online courses were an awesome experience. Challenging and time consuming, but also very motivating and rewarding. I’m waiting for more courses in the future, especially for the new edition of the Game Theory course.

One Response to “Some impressions on Stanford’s Automata and Compilers online courses”

  1. Amey says:

    Hi,I was searching for video lectures on Compiler and Automata for exams…Thank you for resource. I don’t know why but I think many textbooks also don’t cover P and NP stuff really fast.I never understood them.Hopefully this time it might change.

    Also site tag line, kind of cool :D .I am also interested in Functional Programming, There is also course on that available on Coursera I think(uses Scala for teaching concepts).


Leave a Reply


Staypressed theme by Themocracy