4 ms·

I didn't study Computer Science in college. Not one single course. But I'm not stupid. I made straight A's in math through Calculus III. So a lot of these comme

I didn't study Computer Science in college. Not one single course. But I'm not stupid. I made straight A's in math through Calculus III. So a lot of these comments frustrate me. I've taught myself literally everything I know. I've read dozens of books. I practice coding obsessively--it's my passion. Do I "get shit done"? Yes, absolutely. Do I not care about the efficiency of my algorithms? No, I care deeply. I don't always know the "computer-sciency" term for things. But my goodness, get off your high horse and tell me what you want accomplished. Chances are I'll implement a solution that's just as efficient and arguably much better than most "engineers" can. And no, I'm not going to be obsolete at age 40. By the time I reach age 40, PhD's will be coming to be for advise. Because I didn't study computer science in college. I'm studying it for life.

ijidak 9y ago
I think your type is the exception rather than the rule. I have a background in computer science and I love the beauty of correctness. But at work, I constantly find myself struggling to get my fellow developers (even with CS degrees) to think in terms of mathematical correctness instead of just, "how can I get this program to work today?" For example, can we define our methods to use the most general base type that is appropriate, or an interface that is yet more strict, and guard clauses that, the combination of which, create a method that mathematically cannot fail except for upstream, downstream, or machine level (e.g. out of memory) issues. If we do so consistently, then we have rock solid methods that we can trust. But usually I find that my co-workers don't want to think in terms of these sort of rock solid contracts. And instead they just want to get the program to work today; To get their scrum story done. Inevitably they keep going back to these methods to fix a scenario they didn't anticipate. It's such a colossal, collective waste of time. I don't think everyone has to study computer science, but an appreciation that programming can be more mathematically precise than many programmers try to make it would benefit the industry. It would drastically reduce bug counts, improve the ability to reason on code, and increase developer productivity.
deelowe 9y ago
That works great for you. What happens when my objective is to develop a solution that requires 100s of developers, spans multiple years, costs billions, and has major liability concerns?
- oq-pmg 9y ago
  ...and by the time you finish, it most probably will be obsolete :) Jokes aside, software engineering discipline of its own would not give you skills needed to accomplish that.
- halfnibble 9y ago
  My recommendation would be to hire people who are smart, responsible, and passionate. The language or framework can be taught. That's what the FAA does. Their initial assessment exam determines cognitive aptitude--not textbook knowledge. And air traffic controllers from all backgrounds are responsible for billions of dollars worth of aircraft and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people every single day.
  - deelowe 9y ago
    You're confusing systems engineering with knowledge and skills
foepys 9y ago
Why do you consider asking for advice as a bad thing or being inferior? Every PhD knows that if you don't know something, you ask somebody that does. Collaborating is a huge part of academia. If you think you are better than a PhD just because they ask you stuff, you are definitely wrong. You seem to have a completely wrong understanding about why people do a PhD. They (okay, most) don't do it to attach a title to their name but because they are passionate about a specific field and want to expand their and other's knowledge about it.
- rpiguy 9y ago
  Or because they are more interested in theoretical application rather than practical application. PhDs are where you explore questions that have unknown market value. This is often interpreted as, "you can't hack it in the real world, so you hide in academia," and in some cases that is true. But really it has more to do with what problems you are interested in solving/exploring.

ijidak 9y ago

I think your type is the exception rather than the rule. I have a background in computer science and I love the beauty of correctness. But at work, I constantly find myself struggling to get my fellow developers (even with CS degrees) to think in terms of mathematical correctness instead of just, "how can I get this program to work today?" For example, can we define our methods to use the most general base type that is appropriate, or an interface that is yet more strict, and guard clauses that, the combination of which, create a method that mathematically cannot fail except for upstream, downstream, or machine level (e.g. out of memory) issues. If we do so consistently, then we have rock solid methods that we can trust. But usually I find that my co-workers don't want to think in terms of these sort of rock solid contracts. And instead they just want to get the program to work today; To get their scrum story done. Inevitably they keep going back to these methods to fix a scenario they didn't anticipate. It's such a colossal, collective waste of time. I don't think everyone has to study computer science, but an appreciation that programming can be more mathematically precise than many programmers try to make it would benefit the industry. It would drastically reduce bug counts, improve the ability to reason on code, and increase developer productivity.

deelowe 9y ago

That works great for you. What happens when my objective is to develop a solution that requires 100s of developers, spans multiple years, costs billions, and has major liability concerns?

oq-pmg 9y ago
...and by the time you finish, it most probably will be obsolete :) Jokes aside, software engineering discipline of its own would not give you skills needed to accomplish that.
halfnibble 9y ago
My recommendation would be to hire people who are smart, responsible, and passionate. The language or framework can be taught. That's what the FAA does. Their initial assessment exam determines cognitive aptitude--not textbook knowledge. And air traffic controllers from all backgrounds are responsible for billions of dollars worth of aircraft and the lives of hundreds of thousands of people every single day.
- deelowe 9y ago
  You're confusing systems engineering with knowledge and skills

foepys 9y ago

Why do you consider asking for advice as a bad thing or being inferior? Every PhD knows that if you don't know something, you ask somebody that does. Collaborating is a huge part of academia. If you think you are better than a PhD just because they ask you stuff, you are definitely wrong. You seem to have a completely wrong understanding about why people do a PhD. They (okay, most) don't do it to attach a title to their name but because they are passionate about a specific field and want to expand their and other's knowledge about it.

rpiguy 9y ago
Or because they are more interested in theoretical application rather than practical application. PhDs are where you explore questions that have unknown market value. This is often interpreted as, "you can't hack it in the real world, so you hide in academia," and in some cases that is true. But really it has more to do with what problems you are interested in solving/exploring.