| Instructor | Teaching Assistants | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Ravi Chugh | Ben Caldwell | Sam Cohen | Quarrie McGuire |
| he / him / his | they / them / theirs | he / him / his | she / her / hers |
CS 223, UChicago, Winter 2023
Tu/Th 11am–12:20pm
Ryerson
251
| Instructor | Teaching Assistants | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ravi Chugh | Ben Caldwell | Sam Cohen | Quarrie McGuire |
| he / him / his | they / them / theirs | he / him / his | she / her / hers |
Bhakti Shah also helped review some course material. Thank you!
Programming languages often conflate the definition of mathematical functions, which deterministically map inputs to outputs, and computations that effect changes, such as interacting with users and their machines. In this course, we will enrich our perspective about these two related but distinct mechanisms, by studying the statically-typed pure functional programming language Haskell. Topics include: algebraic datatypes, an elegant language for describing and manipulating domain-specific data; higher-order functions and type polymorphism, expressive mechanisms for abstracting programs; and a core set of type classes, with strong connections to category theory, that serve as a foundational and practical basis for mixing pure functions with stateful and interactive computations. In addition to small and medium sized programming assignments, the course maybe includes a larger open-ended final project.
Our primary source is the book A Quarter of Haskell, by our very own Master Professor Stuart Kurtz.
If you would like to consult additional texts, see Learn You a Haskell for Great Good by Miran Lipovača and Programming in Haskell (2nd edition) by Graham Hutton. (There’s also Real World Haskell, but it no longer reflects the real world.)
Class will be run primarily as live coding sessions with interactive discussion throughout. This plan will work as long as I remember to bring my laptop and you remember to come to class.
I will share my lecture notes from the schedule page. These are notes for my lecture, not a substitute.
You may do the corresponding reading before or after class. Figure out what works best for you.
| Tasks | Weight | |
|---|---|---|
| ~8 | Problem Sets (PS) | 10% |
| ~8 | Programming Assignments (PA) | 70% |
| 1 | Final Exam | 20% |
There’s a regular cadence to the weekly schedule:
In general, Problem Set (PS) n and Programming Assignment (PA)
n
both exercise topics covered up through and including
Week n.
PS n is assigned at the start of Week n and
due at the end of Week
n (Friday Sunday 11pm).
PA n is assigned at the end of Week n and due at the end of Week n+1 (Friday 11pm).
Weekly problem sets comprise exercises from the textbook. These exercises are mostly small programming or writing tasks focused locally on the material at hand. Problem sets serve primarily as a check on your understanding — as well as a nudge to keep up with the reading in timely fashion. PSets will be more graded more lightly than programming assignments, and constitute a small fraction of your grade.
You are encouraged to work on problem sets with your classmates — groups of up to 3 are allowed to submit a single solution. More details about submitting PSets will follow on the discussion board.
Weekly programming assignments form the bulk of the coursework, providing the opportunity to apply the concepts under study to larger — and hopefully fun(ctional) — programming tasks.
Programming assignments must be done individually. As per the policy below, you may discuss them at a high level with classmates as long as those interactions are fully disclosed.
Problem sets and programming assignments are due on
Fridays at 11pm CT, unless otherwise noted.
Up to four problem sets may be submitted one day late (within 24 hours after the deadline) and up to four programming assignments may be one day late (again, 24 hours) without penalty.
Barring extenuating circumstances discussed with the instructor well in advance of a deadline, assignments submitted more than one day late risk receiving zero credit, as do additional late assignments beyond the specified allowances.
[UPDATE 1/21/23] In addition to a late chip, an assignment can be submitted 2 days late (1 day beyond the late deadline) with a 25% penalty, and 3 days late with a 50% penalty. If the four cumulative late chips have already been exhausted, then an assignment can be submitted 1 day late with a 25% penalty and 2 days late with a 50% penalty.
Late submissions will be identified automatically based on submission times; no need to notify us.
From the College Academic Integrity & Student Conduct policy:
All members of the University of Chicago belong to a tradition dedicated to the pursuit and cultivation of learning. A few simple principles — academic honesty, mutual respect and civility, personal responsibility — lie at the heart of our intellectual community. Each of us — students, faculty and staff — is pledged to live up to these standards and to support each others’ efforts in this regard. We take these values seriously…
And the Academic Honesty and Plagiarism policy:
It is contrary to justice, academic integrity, and to the spirit of intellectual inquiry to submit another’s statements or ideas of work as one’s own. To do so is plagiarism or cheating, offenses punishable under the University’s disciplinary system. Because these offenses undercut the distinctive moral and intellectual character of the University, we take them very seriously.
Proper acknowledgment of another’s ideas, whether by direct quotation or paraphrase, is expected. In particular, if any written or electronic source is consulted and material is used from that source, directly or indirectly, the source should be identified by author, title, and page number, or by website and date accessed. Any doubts about what constitutes “use” should be addressed to the instructor.
Student interactions are an important and useful means to mastery of the material. We recommend that you discuss the material in this class with other students; that includes problem sets and programming assignments.
So what is the boundary between acceptable collaboration and academic misconduct?
For Problem Sets, there are no restrictions beyond the limit of three students for a group submission. (Although only one submission is required per group, keep in mind the importance of typing up and understanding the exercises on your own.)
For Programming Assignments, while it is acceptable to discuss them, it is not acceptable to turn in someone else’s work as your own.
When the time comes to develop your solution, you should write it yourself from your own memory. You should not send code files back and forth. You should not copy from someone else’s screen. You should not allow someone else to copy your work.
Moreover, you should cite any material discussions (with classmates or others) and any written sources you consulted (e.g. websites or textbooks) in comments at the top of your code files. For example:
// I discussed the proof that P = NP in this assignment
// with ${NAME}.
//
// ${NAME} helped me debug issues I was having with the last step
// in that proof.
//
// I also found code from ${URL} that performed some automatic
// checking of some key lemmas, and I adapted it to...
Please also make sure not to post solutions publicly, for example, in public GitHub respositories or on Stack Overflow.
For student collaborations, it can be a slippery slope that leads from sanctioned collaboration to outright misconduct. But for all the slipperiness, there is a clear line: present only your ideas as yours, and attribute all others.
Violations of this policy will result in zero-credit for affected assignments, a further reduction in final course grade, and a report to the Office of College Community Standards.
If you have any questions about what is or is not proper academic conduct, please ask us.
Pass/Fail: Please let me know by the end of Friday Week 9 if you would like to opt for Pass/Fail grading. To earn a Pass, you must complete all coursework (problem sets, programming assignments, and final exam) with an overall weighted average that would correspond to a quality grade of C- or higher.
Withdrawal: As per College grading policies, “Students who wish to exercise this option must request a W from their adviser in writing by 5 p.m. the Monday of the ninth week of instruction or the day before the final project/exam is due, whichever is earlier.”
[Borrowed from Stuart Kurtz and then adapted]
The University of Chicago is committed to diversity and rigorous inquiry that arises from multiple perspectives. We concur with this commitment and also believe that we have the highest quality interactions and can creatively solve more problems when we recognize and share our diversity. We expect to maintain a productive learning environment based on open communication, mutual respect, and non-discrimination. We view the diversity that students bring to this class as a resource, strength and benefit. It is our intent to present materials and activities that are respectful of diversity: gender, sexuality, disability, generational status, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, race, religious background, and immigration status. Any suggestions for promoting a positive and open environment will be appreciated and given serious consideration.
Our school is committed to fostering a safe, productive learning environment. Title IX and our school policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Sexual misconduct — including harassment, domestic and dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking — is also prohibited at our school. See also the University Policy on Harrassment, Discrimination, and Sexual Misconduct.
Our school encourages anyone experiencing sexual misconduct to talk to someone about what happened, so they can get the support they need and our school can respond appropriately.
If you wish to speak confidentially about an incident of sexual misconduct, want more information about filing a report, or have questions about school policies and procedures, please contact our Title IX Coordinator, which can be found on our school’s website.
Our school is legally obligated to investigate reports of sexual misconduct, and therefore it cannot guarantee the confidentiality of a report, but it will consider a request for confidentiality and respect it to the extent possible.
As a teacher, I am also required by our school to report incidents of sexual misconduct and thus cannot guarantee confidentiality. I must provide our Title IX coordinator with relevant details such as the names of those involved in the incident.
If you have an accommodation, I’ve been contacted by Student Disability Services with your determination letter. But please feel free to double-check with me or ask about any questions.
You may find additional resources at Access UChicago Now.