[dyarosla]

I think that your method for teaching data structures wouldn't work in practice. I don't think many students can arrive at such data structures on their own. How many students can you expect to come up with the implementation for a dictionary who have only ever heard of and used lists and arrays?

The analogy in math would be to expect students to derive the pythagorean theorem from scratch. Not only would this be a difficult task for most newbie mathies, you would also have a significantly smaller proportion of students arriving at the formula than by conventional means. It would be much more effective and efficient for a larger demographic of learners to show them the formula, explain how it's derived, and have them then apply it over multiple examples.

[songzme]

I see where you are coming from, pythagorean theorem is a bit of a stretch. Here's one:

First you teach someone how to carve wood and basic physic. Then you give them different hypotheticals and have them build things that solve these problems. This helps them really understand the problem and how to solve different problems using their skillset. With this, they will be able to build what they need (boats, house, tables, chairs, etc.). Conversely, if you teach a student how to build a boat over and over again, I doubt they would be able to build a house.

Fundamentals: Classes, arrays, objects

Everything else is derived. Linked lists, trees, are not fundamentals.

Again, this is just my observations and I wanted to share.