Something I find funny:

    > Ropes 
    > A Caveat: Ropes are not as complicated as some of the other data structures
    > on this list and many of the papers about ropes give incorrect information 
    > about the runtime of the various operations on them. If you choose to use this 
    > data structure, we'll expect that you'll put in a significant amount of work 
    > comparing them to other approaches or developing novel ideas.

I've tried to study things like Ropes but, for me, it was very complicated. I was interested in them from their usage in Xi. On the other hand different topics in this document were very easy for me to understand (mainly the Levenshtein Automata).

Is this just an example of the professor being better suited to understanding Ropes? Does their "caveat" push people from attempting to examine them?

Fascinating list, many of these I never heard of in my studies.

I especially like the “Why they're worth studying” bits, looks like the prof really cares.

The professor's writing style makes the guide enjoyable. It's an interesting topic across the board, but in the wrong hands this PDF could be an awfully dry read. Not so in this case!

Btw, the instructor of this course has a very interesting side project exploring different data structures

http://www.keithschwarz.com/interesting/

The slides for the course (cs166) themselves are a very good read.

I assume you mean the slides for the Spring 2016 class, which can be found on the class website, along with handouts and other supplemental information for each week. [1]

1: http://web.stanford.edu/class/archive/cs/cs166/cs166.1166/

Thanks for this: Relaxed AVL trees look useful to me.

Ah the Ackerman function. Thanks for the memories.

It looks like this was written by Keith Schwarz:

http://www.keithschwarz.com

I suspect Universities themselves, being an abstract concept rather than a living being, don't actually write any of the things attributed to them.

The document is hosted as a handout for a Stanford course, I don't know why it would be incorrect to attribute it the way it was.

I'm guessing stablemap is providing the author for anyone who might be interested in more of their work, rather than as a criticism or correction. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Haha yup, he's edited his message. Now I just look like a jerk :)