The big problem with projects like this is the quality is pretty much lacking. Most of those MOOCs to begin with are no way intended to replace the equivalent college class. Most of them are watered down introductions to the courses. At a baseline for me to take any MOOC seriously then I want to see a high-quality textbook (or equivalent) for the course. If that doesn't exist then my opinion is the course is likely to be of low-quality. I'm sorry but replacing a textbook with a series of online blog articles or tutorials is simply not a sufficient replacement.

The site gp posted addresses your concerns. All the topics listed in that site primarily focus on textbooks with the videos or courses as additional resources.

What does gp stand for?

GP stands for grandparent.

In case you need an explanation: in the context of a forum, the parent comment is the one you are replying to, and the grandparent comment is the one your parent comment replied to.

Thank you

Quality of MOOCs varies a lot. The edX ones tend to be more like regular college courses if you are selective. Coursera and Udacity are more MOOC-specific courses.

Even within edX, the quality varies a lot. The Harvard introductory course is really for non-CS majors and would be a waste of time for CS majors. The MIT course is for CS majors.

Not being harsh to the OSSU team - they've done a great job and hopefully they can comment on this - but I prefer TeachYourSelfCS. - Because (a) they provide both Book AND Video/MOOC resource for each topic and (b) its a lot more apparent what the 'core' knowledge you need to attain to get a solid undergrad level knowledge base is.

I also like this resource site - its a bit dated though: http://blog.agupieware.com/2014/05/online-learning-bachelors...

Also would be nice to get a simple roadmap like this https://roadmap.sh/frontend

I like Teach Yourself CS too, and I used it as an important source (or at least an inspiration) for parts of the OSSU/CS curriculum. I also use some of its recommended materials in my own private studies.

But since this comparison gets made often, I feel I should point out that TYCS doesn't provide a full CS curriculum. It might be better described as giving the basics of a software engineering curriculum, although even in this sense it seems lacking.

Consider that it excludes theoretical computer science (automata theory, etc.), a major core discipline of a computer science education, as you can see by looking at, for instance, CMU's requirements [0] for a bachelor's in CS. If we regard it as a CS curriculum, it also falls somewhat short in the resources it does recommend. For instance, I consider "The Algorithm Design Manual" very useful for software engineers but, compared to what else is out there, not terribly relevant for a modern computer science education. It also recommends either "Language Implementation Patterns" or the Dragon Book for learning about compilers, the former of which is only of limited academic interest (as the author acknowledges) and the latter of which is good but missing a lot of important developments in the theory and practice of compiler design/implementation.

If we treat it instead as a software engineering curriculum, it fares slightly better, but the resources it recommends for learning about programming are severely lacking. SICP is a gem but it doesn't teach large-scale software architecture (nor does HtDP for that matter). If SWE is what TYCS is going for, then this subject either belongs under Programming or under its own category, but it's nowhere to be found.

Unfortunately, OSSU/CS suffers from similar flaws in its content choices. But that has been due to our decision so far to only select material available in MOOC format; TYCS doesn't appear to impose this limitation on itself. All that being said, I'm just nitpicking that it feels incomplete for either CS or SWE. Every one of TYCS's recommendations is excellent and anyone would be well advised to follow it.

> they provide both Book AND Video/MOOC resource for each topic

The format in which we currently present the material is the major limitation here, as it revolves more around courses rather than topics. We are working on fixing this (albeit slowly due to other commitments I have). I myself much prefer text resources as I retain the material better, and I can easily reference back to it. My goal is to re-orient the curriculum around topics, providing recommended resources for each topic in both text and video format.

[0]: https://csd.cmu.edu/academic/undergraduate/bachelors-curricu...