• an understanding of the major classes of high-level programming languages, language features, and programming styles, with an emphasis on applying concepts from programming language theory;
• formal methods of specifying the syntax and semantics of programming languages;
• and the knowledge needed to write parsers, interpreters, and simple compilers for the major classes of programming languages.

• For email and the newsgroup: 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 something late Friday or over the weekend then you should not expect a reply before Monday.
• Never ever EVER call any staff at home.

There will be two kinds of assignments in this course: machine problems (MPs) and hand-written assignments (HWs). As their names may suggest, the two different kinds of assignments need to be submitted in two different ways. An HW should be submitted by being turned in at the beginning of class on the day the assignment is due.

To submit an MP, you must have an account on the EWS systems. Using an EWS Linux machine, you will need to run the handin program. Before submitting an 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.

Each MP will normally have an automatic 48-hour extension with a point penalty of 20% of the total value of the MP on that MP. If we cannot give such an extension for a particular MP, for example due to scheduling constraints, we will announce that before the MP is handed out.

During the automatic extension, staff is not obliged to answer questions for that MP. 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 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 deadline.

In order to have your regrade considered you must provide the following:

• your netid;
• what assignment or exam question was graded incorrectly; and
• why you think your answer deserves more points than what the grader gave.

Good reasons to ask for a regrade:

• You used a notation that was unfamiliar to the grader but is standard (e.g., in a textbook for one of your other courses).
• The grader recorded a score incorrectly.
• The problem was ambiguous (or just plain wrong), causing you to interpret it differently than the grader.
• The grader marked the problem wrong incorrectly.

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.

You don't have to tell us who you collaborated with. Whether you pass this course or not will depend on whether you pass the exams -- and those are non-collaborative.

University of Illinois rules apply to this course, as they do to all others. In particular, the section of the Student Code on Academic Integrity is relevant here.

We allow you to collaborate for several reasons:

• all 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 (in substantially different form), 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. If you work as a group, each writing part and sharing it with the others, that is also considered cheating. The penalties for being discovered cheating are described in the next section, below.

Think of MPs and written 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. If you get really stuck, and do end up needing someone else to write some small function on an MP for you, or use some code from any other source, *acknowledge* it up front in your work. Doing so may cost you some credit, but you will not be considered to have cheated.

We will be looking for cheating on both homeworks and exams. The penalty for being caught cheating a first time -- for homeworks, failure to give proper credit for work that is not your own, and for tests either sharing your solution or copying someone else's solution -- is that you will receive a negative score for the unit cheated on equal to the value of the unit. A homework (MP or written assignment) is one unit. A numbered problem on test, including all its parts, is a unit. The penalty if you are caught cheating a second time is a grade of F for the class. Moreover, both cheating episodes will be reported to the department. You should take all reasonable precautions to prevent others from cheating and report any suspected cheating.

• The Objective Caml system, release 3.08 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.
• Programming Languages: An Interpreter-based Approach by Samuel N. Kamin. Addison-Wesley, 1990.
• Essentials of Programming Languages, 2nd Edition; by Friedman, Wand, and Haynes. Published by MIT Press 2001. ISBN: 0-262-06217-8.
• 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.
• Modern Compiler Implementation in ML by Andrew W. Appel, Cambridge University Press 1998
• Advanced Programming Language Design, by Raphael A. Finkel. Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 1996.
• Programming Language Pragmatics, 2nd Edition, by Michael L. Scott. Morgan Kaufman Publishers, 2005.
• Concepts of Programming Languages, 8th Edition, by Robert W. Sebesta. Addison Wesley, 2007.
• Programming Languages: Concepts & Constructs, 2nd Edition, by Ravi Sethi. Addison Wesley, 1996.
• Concepts, Techniques, and Models of Computer Programming Peter Van Roy and Seif Haridi, MIT Press, 2004 ISBN 0-262-22069-5