3 ms·

We need specialists too. We need the folks who can tune x86 assembly better than -gcc 03. We need people who can write segfault free C++ code, and we need peopl

We need specialists too. We need the folks who can tune x86 assembly better than -gcc 03. We need people who can write segfault free C++ code, and we need people to fix the Rust borrow checker bugs http://blog.ezyang.com/2013/12/two-bugs-in-the-borrow-checker-every-rust-developer-should-know-about/ http://blog.ezyang.com/2013/12/two-bugs-in-the-borrow-checke... There are plenty of available consumer of good tools, with more coming into the market every day. We need more specialists. Every person has the same capacity, the same brain, the same capability to become an Einstein, a Hoare, a Dijkstra, a whatever modern Comp Sci figure or AI leader you admire these days.

steveklabnik 10y ago
(note for those playing along at home: both of those "bugs" come down to the same issue, which is lexical vs non-lexical analysis. That post was written in 2013, but adding the non-lexical feature has taken quite a long time, requiring a huge refactor to the compiler internally. We're just now getting to the point where the feature could actually be worked on directly.) I firmly agree with your point here; we need more people of all kinds. Specialists, generalists, communicators, community organizers, all of it. Since this is an ember thread, I'll link to Yehuda: https://twitter.com/wycats/status/675498087717056512 https://twitter.com/wycats/status/675498087717056512
dbaupp 10y ago
Advanced tools act as force multipliers for specialists, allowing them to focus on just their specialty and execute it even better & more efficiently e.g. instead of having to hand optimise large swathes of a program, -O3 does a good-enough job for most things, allowing the specialist to spend even more time on the small number of super-hot tight loops.
RangerScience 10y ago
> Every person has the same capacity, the same brain, the same capability to become an Einstein God, I wish this were true, but it definitely isn't. We're trained to think it is, by virtue of (first) our belief in meritocracy (it's value, and that we're in one), and (second) by RPGs and other games. Our baseline cultural assumption is that things are, in the end, fairly balanced... but this just isn't the case. I think it's demonstrable via the existing of evolution: There have to be differences between individuals on an inheritable level in order for evolution to occur, and if there are such differences, the playing field is NOT even.
- ctvo 10y ago
  > ... and (second) by RPGs and other games. I was expecting our western values rooted in the belief that all men are created equal or something. I really don't think RPGs and other games have somehow conditioned us (the niche market that even plays them) to think we're capable of anything, but I quit WoW a long time ago.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    I really think they have. RPGs may be niche, but games aren't, and there's an expectation of balance between player positions in games; even across the equipment load-outs. There's expectations that you trade, say, fire power for precision; resilience for mobility; and that the trade is equitable.
PeterisP 10y ago
"We need people who can write segfault free C++ code" is wishful thinking - as our experience with software vulnerabilities show, even the very best engineers carefully writing and reviewing small security focused code do occasionally get buffer overflows. Note that the statement isn't "we need more people who can write segfault free C/C++ code" - the assertion is that there aren't any of them, that no specialists can do that.

steveklabnik 10y ago

(note for those playing along at home: both of those "bugs" come down to the same issue, which is lexical vs non-lexical analysis. That post was written in 2013, but adding the non-lexical feature has taken quite a long time, requiring a huge refactor to the compiler internally. We're just now getting to the point where the feature could actually be worked on directly.) I firmly agree with your point here; we need more people of all kinds. Specialists, generalists, communicators, community organizers, all of it. Since this is an ember thread, I'll link to Yehuda: https://twitter.com/wycats/status/675498087717056512 https://twitter.com/wycats/status/675498087717056512

dbaupp 10y ago

Advanced tools act as force multipliers for specialists, allowing them to focus on just their specialty and execute it even better & more efficiently e.g. instead of having to hand optimise large swathes of a program, -O3 does a good-enough job for most things, allowing the specialist to spend even more time on the small number of super-hot tight loops.

RangerScience 10y ago

> Every person has the same capacity, the same brain, the same capability to become an Einstein God, I wish this were true, but it definitely isn't. We're trained to think it is, by virtue of (first) our belief in meritocracy (it's value, and that we're in one), and (second) by RPGs and other games. Our baseline cultural assumption is that things are, in the end, fairly balanced... but this just isn't the case. I think it's demonstrable via the existing of evolution: There have to be differences between individuals on an inheritable level in order for evolution to occur, and if there are such differences, the playing field is NOT even.

ctvo 10y ago
> ... and (second) by RPGs and other games. I was expecting our western values rooted in the belief that all men are created equal or something. I really don't think RPGs and other games have somehow conditioned us (the niche market that even plays them) to think we're capable of anything, but I quit WoW a long time ago.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  I really think they have. RPGs may be niche, but games aren't, and there's an expectation of balance between player positions in games; even across the equipment load-outs. There's expectations that you trade, say, fire power for precision; resilience for mobility; and that the trade is equitable.

PeterisP 10y ago

"We need people who can write segfault free C++ code" is wishful thinking - as our experience with software vulnerabilities show, even the very best engineers carefully writing and reviewing small security focused code do occasionally get buffer overflows. Note that the statement isn't "we need more people who can write segfault free C/C++ code" - the assertion is that there aren't any of them, that no specialists can do that.