4 ms·

I agree with what you say, but it seems obvious to me. On the other hand, what gets overlooked, IMO, is the "other stuff". Humanities, law, business, biology,

by kaeluka 10y ago

I agree with what you say, but it seems obvious to me. On the other hand, what gets overlooked, IMO, is the "other stuff". Humanities, law, business, biology, take your pick! When faced with a problem, a programmer is always looking at at least two issues: 1. to implement, 2. to understand the problem domain. I see math being exceptionally helpful in 1), but at most somewhat helpful in 2) -- because at the end of the day, programs that we write tend not to be about math, or logic. Category theory does not help you understand the contract your company signed with some other company 12 years ago, and the amendments they made 7 years ago. It does help you implement these things concisely and correctly. What'd would help you understand would be for a programmer to know something about contracts. Most programmers that I know have a certain talent for and knowledge about math. Most programmers that I know, also don't know a lot about the world outside of computers. That includes me, fwiw. I think that their careers would profit from considering learning some non-mathematical domains more than from learning more math. I'm not arguing against math, but I'm arguing for a good balance. To know at least the basics of some other domains, before you set out to learn a lot about one.

pigged 10y ago
I disagree, I would say most programmers know too little math and even too little computer science. As a field we are way behind most other fields in how well we know our own field. Yet most programmers are somewhat familiar with many other fields because they spend a lot of time reading about stuff on the internet. I think the reality is the opposite of what you suggest, programmers are in no way an example of a profession where most practitioners have a deep and extensive knowledge. For most programmers, the learning method is finding out how to DO things (as in, find an example on the internet, try it, it works, I'm done) without actually understanding anything. You must be very lucky in where you work if you think programmers know a lot of math and even know what "category theory" is.
- kaeluka 10y ago
  I don't think that reading about stuff online leads to knowledge, just like repeating writing the same boring CRUD app over and over again won't make you a much better programmer. > As a field we are way behind most other fields in how well we know our own field. I'd be surprised if that was so. I think we have a tendency to idealise other fields' achievements :) Additionally, I think you're using a scientist as a role model for a programmer. I don't think that's a good role model. Most programmers are technicians, not scientists. They produce products, not knowledge. > You must be very lucky in where you work Hm. It is the case that I'm lucky! I work at a University, in a PL group. So the people around me daily have better math foundations than most. I'll admit that there is bias in what I say.
  - pigged 10y ago
    I am not using a scientist role model. I am using a role model like Linus Torvalds, John Carmack or Eric Lippert. Would you disagree that these are good programmer role models? They have DEEP knowledge, not just "hey man have you seen the latest javascript framework". And I don't see why you think the average programmer knows less about the law than someone in another non-legal profession. In my experience this is simply not the case, and yes, reading about it on the internet is better than not reading about it at all. It's not like dentists spend their time reading actual law books. Honestly, I have no idea where you get this from, it sounds absolutely wrong, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
    - kaeluka 10y ago
      These are role models that I personally very much agree with. At the same time, the industry has need for relatively few people like them. Of course, if every programmer would magically turn into them, that'd be great. But no one turns into them over night. And I think it's obvious that it makes no sense honing yourself into a perfect logical machine of deadly precision, if tomorrow you're still writing the same boring crap. Most programmers have boring jobs. Not because they're bad, but because most software being written is solving boring problems. I don't think that the average programmer knows less about the law (or any other field) than someone in another non-legal profession, I think that they know about the same amount. But they should know MORE about the other professions, because most programming jobs have to do with commerce, law, design, what have you. Software products almost always have to do with a domain that is not software. A dentist has little use for law in his working life, but a programmer is more likely to profit from a basic understanding. One thing that is special about the programming profession is that it is very diverse in levels of skill. And that's not only ok, I think that's a good thing. I think this diversity is connected to a few things, one of them: Our work product is very cheap to copy, and in the resulting economy, a small difference in utility will lead to huge differences in market share. Given a large market, this makes it reasonable to hone your skills further, where in other professions you'd be facing diminishing returns much earlier. This applies more to software that is widely used -- it has a larger market. Given a small market, this applies much less. In other, oversimplified, words: if you're writing software that is used (directly, or indirectly) by thousands, it pays off to train yourself for an extra year, even if it increases the utility of your product by only a small percentage. On the other hand, if you're a freelancer building web pages for a local business (a market size of 1), you're not going to profit much from the increase in utility. Becoming Carmack makes sense in a large market. In a small market, it doesn't make sense to try to dominate it, but to acquire new markets.

by kaeluka 10y ago

pigged 10y ago

I disagree, I would say most programmers know too little math and even too little computer science. As a field we are way behind most other fields in how well we know our own field. Yet most programmers are somewhat familiar with many other fields because they spend a lot of time reading about stuff on the internet. I think the reality is the opposite of what you suggest, programmers are in no way an example of a profession where most practitioners have a deep and extensive knowledge. For most programmers, the learning method is finding out how to DO things (as in, find an example on the internet, try it, it works, I'm done) without actually understanding anything. You must be very lucky in where you work if you think programmers know a lot of math and even know what "category theory" is.

kaeluka 10y ago
I don't think that reading about stuff online leads to knowledge, just like repeating writing the same boring CRUD app over and over again won't make you a much better programmer. > As a field we are way behind most other fields in how well we know our own field. I'd be surprised if that was so. I think we have a tendency to idealise other fields' achievements :) Additionally, I think you're using a scientist as a role model for a programmer. I don't think that's a good role model. Most programmers are technicians, not scientists. They produce products, not knowledge. > You must be very lucky in where you work Hm. It is the case that I'm lucky! I work at a University, in a PL group. So the people around me daily have better math foundations than most. I'll admit that there is bias in what I say.
- pigged 10y ago
  I am not using a scientist role model. I am using a role model like Linus Torvalds, John Carmack or Eric Lippert. Would you disagree that these are good programmer role models? They have DEEP knowledge, not just "hey man have you seen the latest javascript framework". And I don't see why you think the average programmer knows less about the law than someone in another non-legal profession. In my experience this is simply not the case, and yes, reading about it on the internet is better than not reading about it at all. It's not like dentists spend their time reading actual law books. Honestly, I have no idea where you get this from, it sounds absolutely wrong, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
  - kaeluka 10y ago
    These are role models that I personally very much agree with. At the same time, the industry has need for relatively few people like them. Of course, if every programmer would magically turn into them, that'd be great. But no one turns into them over night. And I think it's obvious that it makes no sense honing yourself into a perfect logical machine of deadly precision, if tomorrow you're still writing the same boring crap. Most programmers have boring jobs. Not because they're bad, but because most software being written is solving boring problems. I don't think that the average programmer knows less about the law (or any other field) than someone in another non-legal profession, I think that they know about the same amount. But they should know MORE about the other professions, because most programming jobs have to do with commerce, law, design, what have you. Software products almost always have to do with a domain that is not software. A dentist has little use for law in his working life, but a programmer is more likely to profit from a basic understanding. One thing that is special about the programming profession is that it is very diverse in levels of skill. And that's not only ok, I think that's a good thing. I think this diversity is connected to a few things, one of them: Our work product is very cheap to copy, and in the resulting economy, a small difference in utility will lead to huge differences in market share. Given a large market, this makes it reasonable to hone your skills further, where in other professions you'd be facing diminishing returns much earlier. This applies more to software that is widely used -- it has a larger market. Given a small market, this applies much less. In other, oversimplified, words: if you're writing software that is used (directly, or indirectly) by thousands, it pays off to train yourself for an extra year, even if it increases the utility of your product by only a small percentage. On the other hand, if you're a freelancer building web pages for a local business (a market size of 1), you're not going to profit much from the increase in utility. Becoming Carmack makes sense in a large market. In a small market, it doesn't make sense to try to dominate it, but to acquire new markets.