| Objectives |
Students taking this course can expect to be able to:
-
Program in a functional programming language
-
Understand the evaluation of programs in a functional programming laguage
-
Write a type checker / type inferencer given a formal
type system
-
Write a lexer, and a parser using recursive-descent
parsing, or a parser-generator
-
Write a syntax-directed translator from abstract syntax
to intermediate representations
-
Recognize and use major methods of specification of
dynamic semantics
-
Write a interpreter based on a formal operational
semantics of the language
|
| Contacting the Course Staff |
-
For email
and
Campuswire: please allow about 24 or
so hours for a response, except on weekends (see
below).
-
The staff do not work on the weekends. If you send
or post something late Friday or over the weekend then you
should not expect a reply before Monday.
-
Never ever EVER call any
staff at home.
|
| Submitting Assignments |
-
This semseter, there are two kinds of assignments in this course:
machine problems (MPs), and web assignments (WAs). MPs
are submitted as text files, one for each problem,
with the file usually named after the code being
implemented. WAs are calculational exercises. Both are submitted in
PrairieLearn. For each problem in an MP, you will be given in
PrairieLearn an editor (VSCode), containing a window
with a file for you to complete with the answer to the
problem. It typically will already contain a bit of
starter code sufficient for you to begin testing your
work. VSCode also has the ability to allow you to
start a terminal window, which will open placing you
in a directory with all the files you need to complete
and test the assignment, and with full access to the
compiler for OCaml, the programming language we will
be using this semester.
-
Before submitting an MP assignment, you MUST make
sure that your MP
compiles with the student grading script
supplied with the assignment.
If your MP fails to compile with the student grading script,
your assignment will get NO CREDIT. There will be no partial
credit for assignments that fail to compile.
-
You may do multiple commits of either the MPs or the WAs.
Work submitted before the late deadline will not be subject to
the late penalty, but work submitted after will.
|
| Extensions |
- Each MP/AW will normally have an automatic 48-hour
extension with a penalty on that MP/WA of 20% the total value of
the assignment. If we cannot give such an extension for a
particular MP/WA, for example due to scheduling constraints, we
will announce that when the MP/WA is handed out.
During the automatic extension, staff is not obliged to
answer questions for that MP/WA. You are on your own.
Extensions without a point penalty for the first 48 hours and
any extension beyond the 48 hours will only be granted under
very unusual circumstances such as a medical or family
emergency. A signed note from a responsible party, or similar
evidence, will be required. If you do need such an extension
for some legitimate reason, do your best to let us know as soon
as possible, preferably before the normal MP/WA deadline.
|
| Regrade Policy |
|
All grading is done automatically in PrairieLearn via algorithms
that are fairly generic and in no way specialized to your code.
A regrade for you will likely mean a regrade for the entire class.
Requesting a regrade requires an explanation of why you believe
your answer was incorrectly graded.
In order to have your regrade considered you must provide the following:
- your netid;
- what assignment or exam question was graded incorrectly; and
- what evidence you have that your answer was incorrectly graded.
You must also submit your regrade request for a particular assignment
within one week of receiving grades for that assignment. It
must be submitted directly to the course instructor, not to the
TAs. Late regrade requests will not be accepted or read.
Good reasons to ask for a regrade:
- The grading was inconsistent with the description of how
to do the problem given in class. Details need to be
provided.
- The grading was inconsistent with the problem
statement. You must indicate what you believe the
inconsistency to be.
Bad reasons to ask for a regrade:
- Part of your answer "matched" the answer given in the solution.
A partially correct answer is still wrong.
"The difference between an
almost right word and a right word is the difference between a
lightning bug and lightning." -- Mark Twain
- You wrote down two or more answers, only one of which was correct.
Never put more than one answer for a question unless we tell you that
such a thing is legitimate.
- You expended a lot of effort answering the problem. We are
measuring mastery, not effort.
- You wrote something down.
|
| Collaboration |
|
You are allowed to collaborate on the machine problems (MPs) and
the web assignments (WAs) of this
course, in order to figure out how to solve the problem, resolve things
you don't understand, and help each other track down errors or bugs.
Nevertheless, you must each write and test your code
separately and submit your own solution.
Similarly, you must write up your own WA separately from others.
If your collaboration extended beyond understanding for what the
problem was asking, then you should note on your assignment with whom
you collaborated. As always, you are subject to
the rules for plagiarism. Whether you pass
this course or not will depend heavily on whether you pass the exams -- and
those are non-collaborative.
We allow you to collaborate for several reasons:
- substantial research done indicates that students learn
more when they are allowed to work together;
- our own ability to respond to student questions is increased
because your peers are able to give help.
However, you have to collaborate intelligently in order to get
the most out of it. If you ask a friend to describe the
solution completely to you and then write it down, you will get
the credit but you'll fail the exam because you never learned
the methods/techniques/concepts.
If you copy a friend's solution directly or substantially,
that will be considered cheating, unless you give a clear cite
of your source. If you work as a group, each writing part and
sharing it with the others, that is also considered cheating,
unless your cite all members from whom you copied. If you
copied your answer from a source on the internet, that is
considered cheating, unless you both cite your source, and
clearly indicate what was copied. The penalties for being
discovered cheating are described in the next section, below.
If you offer your solution for others to copy, you should
protect yourself from being accused of cheating by reporting
this as well. Then, if some of those to whom you have lent your
work fail to cite you, you will be protected from cheating
accusations (unless they also claim they lent the same problem
to you).
If you copy your solutions from friends or other sources, you
must cite your source, and the degree and extent of copying.
Think of MPs and web assignments as being part of the
practice for the exam. Many of the problems will be used as a
basis for the exam problems themselves. In fact, when it comes
time to study, we will likely advise you to redo your MPs and
written assignments.
|
| Policy on Cheating |
|
We will be looking for cheating on both assignments and exams. The
penalty for being caught cheating a first time -- either sharing your
solution or copying anyone else's solution on an exam, or copying
anyone else's solution on an assignment without citation -- is
that you will receive a negative score for the unit cheated on
equal to the value of the unit. An assignment (MP or web
assignment) is one unit. A numbered problem on a test, including all
its parts, is one unit. The penalty if you are caught cheating a
second time is a grade of F for the class. You should take all
reasonable precautions to prevent others from cheating and report any
suspected cheating.
|
| Grading |
|
All grading is done automatically in PrairieLearn, and you will
receive your results for each problem when you press the Save
& Grade button. You can see the scores of all past
assessments in the PrairieLearn gradebook.
| Grading Breakdown |
|---|
| Work |
Weight |
Notes |
| Machine Problems, and Web Assignments (combined) | 10% |
| Midterm 1 | 25% |
| Midterm 2 | 25% |
| Final Exam | 40% |
| Project | NA |
Only for 4-unit graduate students |
|
| Textbooks |
There is no required textbook for this course. However, the following textbooks are recommended reading: (see also the resources page)
-
The Objective Caml system, release 3.12
Documentation and user's manual by Xavier Leroy
(with Damien Doligez, Jacques Garrigue, Didier Rémy and Jérôme
Vouillon), from the official INRIA website for OCAML.
- an
online book
about OCaml from CalTech.
- Modern
Compiler Implementation in ML by Andrew Appel.
Published by Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-60764-7
(paperback).
- Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools,
also known as "The Dragon Book"; by Aho, Sethi, and Ullman.
Published by Addison-Wesley. ISBN: 0-201-10088-6.
- Essentials of
Programming Languages, 2nd Edition; by Friedman, Wand,
and Haynes. Published by MIT Press 2001. ISBN: 0-262-06217-8.
- Advanced Programming Language Design, by Raphael
A. Finkel. Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1996.
- Programming Language Pragmatics, by Michael
L. Scott. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 2000.
- Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer
Programming Peter Van Roy and Seif Haridi, MIT Press,
2004 ISBN 0-262-22069-5
|
|
|