3 ms·

I feel miserable doing the kind of programming I do nowadays! I wish I could go back to simpler times, where I actually had to reason about algorithms

I feel miserable doing the kind of programming I do nowadays! I wish I could go back to simpler times, where I actually had to reason about algorithms, data structures, hardware, etc... I don't subscribe to the school of thought that values engineers lower on the stack more than those higher up, especially since there seem to be a lot more new jobs of the latter sort and we all need to make a living, and there are plenty of cool problems in those spaces (algorithms, data structures, performance... it's all there). But I think the lucky ones are people who get to work low enough relative to their knowledge where it doesn't feel they are dealing with endless abstractions and layer upon layer of magic. The startup I work for moves so fast that I'm forced to use other peoples open source projects without even having the time to read the source. :( sounds to me that this might be more the problem. And worse is I suspect it's common.

nextos 10y ago
I think he doesn't necessarily imply anything about being high or low in the chain. But about beauty and understanding. SICP is one example, but I bet it's even possible to be happy coding GUIs or any other rather mundane things if one does it with an elegant toolset. For example, Oz comes to mind. Some modern tools are not pleasing to use, often because architectures are a mess. Things move forward too quickly.
- monknomo 10y ago
  What's Oz?
  - carapace 10y ago
    http://mozart.github.io/ http://mozart.github.io/
0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago
A worse problem would be simulating linux in your head as you methodically review the source.
SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
I don't subscribe to the school of thought that values engineers lower on the stack more than those higher up Meaning developers who understand low-level details vs. developers who just wire up high level libraries? I've done the full range, from entire games written in assembly language and embedded C code, through high level full stack development with NodeJS, Python, and other languages. The low-level coding is far more skilled work than the high level coding. Instead of most of the work being "how do these plug in to each other?", it's how exactly does my code function with respect to all of the potential events additional threads, and how all of the edge cases interact, and what is causing this obscure bug? While that may not seem intrinsically harder, none of these are typically something you can Google or search StackOverflow for the answers on. So you're really just on your own. And developers who have grown up on "Google all the answers!" often hit a wall when they need to apply real problem solving skills. Luckily I can find enjoyment in many levels, since a lot of the jobs I've found recently have been more of the "full stack" or "mobile development' category. It's easy and fun work. I also have little problem piercing the magic and understanding how things fit together, but that means that I end up with opinions on many topics divergent with the crowd. For instance, I avoid writing Android/Java or iOS/Swift, and instead use cross-platform development stacks exclusively. Yes it means an entire extra layer of complexity, but it also means I write the app once for all target platforms. Far too big of a win to ignore.
- rimantas 10y ago
  Sorry, that way you do not write an app for all of the platforms. You write for none of them it just happens to run on one of them.
  - loup-vaillant 10y ago
    Err, what do you mean? I once wrote the embryo of a game with Qt, it ran on 3 environments (GNU/Linux, Windows, Android). What to I care that I write for "none" of those platforms if it "happens" to run on all 3?
  - SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
    I test on iPad, iPod Touch, a half dozen Android devices, and on emulators. Works well everywhere, even with platform-specific differences in design to match different platform paradigms. And I have happy clients. I've run into this attitude before, though. It seems to be the last bastion of denial of folks who have spent a lot of time learning one platform and who don't want to learn something new. Sorry, but there are better ways.

nextos 10y ago

I think he doesn't necessarily imply anything about being high or low in the chain. But about beauty and understanding. SICP is one example, but I bet it's even possible to be happy coding GUIs or any other rather mundane things if one does it with an elegant toolset. For example, Oz comes to mind. Some modern tools are not pleasing to use, often because architectures are a mess. Things move forward too quickly.

monknomo 10y ago
What's Oz?
- carapace 10y ago
  http://mozart.github.io/ http://mozart.github.io/

0xdeadbeefbabe 10y ago

A worse problem would be simulating linux in your head as you methodically review the source.

SomeCallMeTim 10y ago

I don't subscribe to the school of thought that values engineers lower on the stack more than those higher up Meaning developers who understand low-level details vs. developers who just wire up high level libraries? I've done the full range, from entire games written in assembly language and embedded C code, through high level full stack development with NodeJS, Python, and other languages. The low-level coding is far more skilled work than the high level coding. Instead of most of the work being "how do these plug in to each other?", it's how exactly does my code function with respect to all of the potential events additional threads, and how all of the edge cases interact, and what is causing this obscure bug? While that may not seem intrinsically harder, none of these are typically something you can Google or search StackOverflow for the answers on. So you're really just on your own. And developers who have grown up on "Google all the answers!" often hit a wall when they need to apply real problem solving skills. Luckily I can find enjoyment in many levels, since a lot of the jobs I've found recently have been more of the "full stack" or "mobile development' category. It's easy and fun work. I also have little problem piercing the magic and understanding how things fit together, but that means that I end up with opinions on many topics divergent with the crowd. For instance, I avoid writing Android/Java or iOS/Swift, and instead use cross-platform development stacks exclusively. Yes it means an entire extra layer of complexity, but it also means I write the app once for all target platforms. Far too big of a win to ignore.

rimantas 10y ago
Sorry, that way you do not write an app for all of the platforms. You write for none of them it just happens to run on one of them.
- loup-vaillant 10y ago
  Err, what do you mean? I once wrote the embryo of a game with Qt, it ran on 3 environments (GNU/Linux, Windows, Android). What to I care that I write for "none" of those platforms if it "happens" to run on all 3?
- SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
  I test on iPad, iPod Touch, a half dozen Android devices, and on emulators. Works well everywhere, even with platform-specific differences in design to match different platform paradigms. And I have happy clients. I've run into this attitude before, though. It seems to be the last bastion of denial of folks who have spent a lot of time learning one platform and who don't want to learn something new. Sorry, but there are better ways.