4 ms·

Believe it or not, there are many different kinds of software engineering, many of which don't require you to know anything about binary or bitwise arithmetic.

Believe it or not, there are many different kinds of software engineering, many of which don't require you to know anything about binary or bitwise arithmetic. I don't know that I've ever used these as a full stack web developer, but I did learn it in my Computer Science program; the only time I think about the bit position of something is when setting/viewing file permissions, or reading source code for a library which does deal with this (there are legitimate reasons to use bitwise operators in JS for things like hashing, cryptography, secure string generation, etc.) But really, there are people doing software engineering who have never thought about this, and while I agree that any blind spot in knowledge is detrimental (and everyone has some blind spots), it's condescending to suggest that this specific blind spot is noteworthy to the point of lacking foundational knowledge. Your software engineering isn't the only type of software engineering.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I must question the value of a "software engineer" who is working at a layer so abstracted from the reality of implementation that they don't have to understand binary. > the only time I think about the bit position of something is when setting/viewing file permissions, or reading source code for a library which does deal with this (there are legitimate reasons to use bitwise operators in JS for things like hashing, cryptography, secure string generation, etc.) People should understand how the libraries they use work. Not necessarily in detail, but they shouldn't be a magic box they're helpless to understand if it isn't working right. > it's condescending to suggest that this specific blind spot is noteworthy to the point of lacking foundational knowledge. Possibly. I'll admit that though it seems foundationally important to my understanding of computing it may not necessarily be foundational to understanding of computing in a conceptual sense. However, it is so basic, and follows so naturally from boolean logic (which is foundational), that it is quite surprising it never came up for someone in this profession. I mean, if you already know how logic gates work it is trivial to leverage that into understanding bitwise operations.
- pcthrowaway 5y ago
  > People should understand how the libraries they use work. Not necessarily in detail, but they shouldn't be a magic box they're helpless to understand if it isn't working right. What I'm saying is that 'should' is unfairly prescriptive. There are things I don't understand that would be massively beneficial such as being able to understand drivers and driver code, C (we didn't learn it to any meaningful capacity in my program), and many other skills. Fortunately, I've managed to take what I do know about computing, software, and programming, and find places I can apply that knowledge in a software engineering discipline that utilizes the knowledge I do have most effectively. Would I be able to write a driver if I was being paid to do it? Probably; there would be some learning required, maybe not even that much, but someone would be paying me to learn things outside of my general experience. I'd welcome it as well, but it just hasn't happened. Similarly, there are people whose knowledge encompasses a subset of what I know (but possibly excluding binary and bitwise operations in totality) who are also very effective software engineers. If you can think about browser state, reactivity, CSS specificity, the DOM, and git, you can be a very effective front-end engineer, and you never have to know much about how computers work. There are absolute wizards with 'front-of-front-end' who will be much more effective at animations, effects, device breakpoints, and visually pleasing layouts than I will ever be, who will never think about binary. And it will never be remotely relevant to them.
  - ryandrake 5y ago
    I think everyone, no matter where they are in the stack, should have at least a basic idea about how their programs eventually work. How they get turned into machine code, how that machine code gets fetched and executed, how registers work, memory accesses, RAM vs. ROM, what various caches are doing, how I/O devices work including disk, how interrupts work, how syscalls work, how memory allocation is done, what the stack is, typical segments of address space: code, data, stack, heap. I've been in the field for a few decades, but this is still kind of basic second-year compsci, right? You don't need to be an expert at bitwise operations to grok these important concepts.
    - pcthrowaway 5y ago
      > How they get turned into machine code, how that machine code gets fetched and executed, how registers work, memory accesses, RAM vs. ROM, what various caches are doing, how I/O devices work including disk, how interrupts work, how syscalls work, how memory allocation is done, what the stack is, typical segments of address space: code, data, stack, heap Yeah, I've learned all of this stuff ~10 years ago (in compsci also) and forgotten a lot of it due to never using it. Should I learn it again? To be honest, I'd like to, but I haven't taken the time either. I contemplated doing a deep dive the one time I've had to interview recently, but then didn't end up needing it. I'm sure if I wanted to move to a FAANG I'd need to brush up, but in the mean time I'm bombarded with plenty of things I need to learn on a regular basis to keep up with the actual technologies I work with > but this is still kind of basic second-year compsci, right? To be honest, I find I have a very hard time really integrating knowledge of something until I've had ample opportunity to apply it in different ways over some extended period of time. I think this was why the knowledge never stuck when I learned it in CS. There were so many things I'd cram before the test and then never need to think about again. If I don't have the opportunity to apply these concepts, trying to really 'learn' them is a Sisyphean task for me. With enough effort and repetition I'm sure I could, but I don't agree that I should. I think your attitude really overlooks the variance in learning styles and capabilities. Not everyone can remember things they don't apply for 10 years.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  "Understanding binary" on a basic level is different than being comfortable using bitshifting / bitwise operators.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    ...not really? Bitwise operators can be explained in a couple minutes, tops, and follow naturally from another concept everyone working in computing should be familiar with: boolean logic.
    - Zababa 5y ago
      Then why don't you spend that few minutes explaining the thing to the person you initially replied to, or link them to a resource instead of doing what you're currently doing?
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        Because several other people already gave perfectly adequate direct responses. Mostly what I'm doing currently is defending my level of surprise.
        Zababa 5y ago
        That's fair. A point that I didn't see mentionned is that what seems really easy for you may not be for others. I know about boolean logic, and bits, but I'm not comfortable with bitwise operation and they certainly don't seem obvious to me. On the other hand, I have coded with other people, and was really surprised that they didn't understand a certain thing (going from for loops to map for example). When you look at the number of programming languages and how different "idiomatic code" can be for the same task, I think it's a proof that different people think in a different way. For some low-level stuff will be very intuitive, for some it'll be functional programming, for others OO, etc. As some other people said, CS/SWE is very wide, it's hard to know everything at any point. Add to that that for most people working with high level software, knowing more about the business gives more leverage than learning more about CS fundamentals, you end up with people knowing widely different things. I think that in general, what's important is having a basic idea about most thing (known unknowns instead of unknown unknowns) so that you can look into stuff deeper if you need it.
- nomel 5y ago
  > I must question the value of a "software engineer" who is working at a layer so abstracted from the reality of implementation that they don't have to understand binary. To me it sounds like very productive work and a progression of technology. It's 2021, where 99.99% of us don't have to implement our own binary protocols, and work with computers rather than microcontrollers. If you're bit shifting, then it's most likely extremely low level work, which, as is the point of advancements in technology, is necessarily becoming more and more rare, or some case of NIH. I do work with binary protocols, so I'm very familiar with bit shifting, but I also realize this is all grunt work that I'm having to implement due to poor vendor support of usable/no libraries.
devit 5y ago
It is a clear sign that the person never had any genuine interest in computing, since that would have led to learning how a CPU works (it's the most important part of a computer!) and thus its instruction set, which would have of course led to learning about binary operators and shift operators. Instead the person clearly was motivated only by some specific application of computing or by making money.
- yusefnapora 5y ago
  To me this reads like someone arguing that a champion race car driver must never have had a genuine interest in automobiles if they've never rebuilt an engine.
- dwaltrip 5y ago
  Talk about gate keeping… You don’t get to decree what genuine interest in computing looks like for all of humanity.
  - snailysnooze 5y ago
    Everyone thinks their work/what they know is important, that's it. Why don't study electrical engineering while we're at it. Even better, go even deeper and get us all some physics There's a reason Randall Munroe draw that butterflies xkcd comics.
- foxes 5y ago
  Clearly you do not have a genuine interesting in computing because you do not have a complete theory of everything, unifying gravity and all the fundamental forces, so really you have no idea how computation even happens at a fundamental level. Stop gatekeeping there’s going to be someone smarter than you. People work at different levels. The logic of how a huge program works can be abstracted above bit shifting. It is still computation. Maybe try be more understanding.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

I must question the value of a "software engineer" who is working at a layer so abstracted from the reality of implementation that they don't have to understand binary. > the only time I think about the bit position of something is when setting/viewing file permissions, or reading source code for a library which does deal with this (there are legitimate reasons to use bitwise operators in JS for things like hashing, cryptography, secure string generation, etc.) People should understand how the libraries they use work. Not necessarily in detail, but they shouldn't be a magic box they're helpless to understand if it isn't working right. > it's condescending to suggest that this specific blind spot is noteworthy to the point of lacking foundational knowledge. Possibly. I'll admit that though it seems foundationally important to my understanding of computing it may not necessarily be foundational to understanding of computing in a conceptual sense. However, it is so basic, and follows so naturally from boolean logic (which is foundational), that it is quite surprising it never came up for someone in this profession. I mean, if you already know how logic gates work it is trivial to leverage that into understanding bitwise operations.

pcthrowaway 5y ago
> People should understand how the libraries they use work. Not necessarily in detail, but they shouldn't be a magic box they're helpless to understand if it isn't working right. What I'm saying is that 'should' is unfairly prescriptive. There are things I don't understand that would be massively beneficial such as being able to understand drivers and driver code, C (we didn't learn it to any meaningful capacity in my program), and many other skills. Fortunately, I've managed to take what I do know about computing, software, and programming, and find places I can apply that knowledge in a software engineering discipline that utilizes the knowledge I do have most effectively. Would I be able to write a driver if I was being paid to do it? Probably; there would be some learning required, maybe not even that much, but someone would be paying me to learn things outside of my general experience. I'd welcome it as well, but it just hasn't happened. Similarly, there are people whose knowledge encompasses a subset of what I know (but possibly excluding binary and bitwise operations in totality) who are also very effective software engineers. If you can think about browser state, reactivity, CSS specificity, the DOM, and git, you can be a very effective front-end engineer, and you never have to know much about how computers work. There are absolute wizards with 'front-of-front-end' who will be much more effective at animations, effects, device breakpoints, and visually pleasing layouts than I will ever be, who will never think about binary. And it will never be remotely relevant to them.
- ryandrake 5y ago
  I think everyone, no matter where they are in the stack, should have at least a basic idea about how their programs eventually work. How they get turned into machine code, how that machine code gets fetched and executed, how registers work, memory accesses, RAM vs. ROM, what various caches are doing, how I/O devices work including disk, how interrupts work, how syscalls work, how memory allocation is done, what the stack is, typical segments of address space: code, data, stack, heap. I've been in the field for a few decades, but this is still kind of basic second-year compsci, right? You don't need to be an expert at bitwise operations to grok these important concepts.
  - pcthrowaway 5y ago
    > How they get turned into machine code, how that machine code gets fetched and executed, how registers work, memory accesses, RAM vs. ROM, what various caches are doing, how I/O devices work including disk, how interrupts work, how syscalls work, how memory allocation is done, what the stack is, typical segments of address space: code, data, stack, heap Yeah, I've learned all of this stuff ~10 years ago (in compsci also) and forgotten a lot of it due to never using it. Should I learn it again? To be honest, I'd like to, but I haven't taken the time either. I contemplated doing a deep dive the one time I've had to interview recently, but then didn't end up needing it. I'm sure if I wanted to move to a FAANG I'd need to brush up, but in the mean time I'm bombarded with plenty of things I need to learn on a regular basis to keep up with the actual technologies I work with > but this is still kind of basic second-year compsci, right? To be honest, I find I have a very hard time really integrating knowledge of something until I've had ample opportunity to apply it in different ways over some extended period of time. I think this was why the knowledge never stuck when I learned it in CS. There were so many things I'd cram before the test and then never need to think about again. If I don't have the opportunity to apply these concepts, trying to really 'learn' them is a Sisyphean task for me. With enough effort and repetition I'm sure I could, but I don't agree that I should. I think your attitude really overlooks the variance in learning styles and capabilities. Not everyone can remember things they don't apply for 10 years.
dwaltrip 5y ago
"Understanding binary" on a basic level is different than being comfortable using bitshifting / bitwise operators.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  ...not really? Bitwise operators can be explained in a couple minutes, tops, and follow naturally from another concept everyone working in computing should be familiar with: boolean logic.
  - Zababa 5y ago
    Then why don't you spend that few minutes explaining the thing to the person you initially replied to, or link them to a resource instead of doing what you're currently doing?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      Because several other people already gave perfectly adequate direct responses. Mostly what I'm doing currently is defending my level of surprise.
      - Zababa 5y ago
        That's fair. A point that I didn't see mentionned is that what seems really easy for you may not be for others. I know about boolean logic, and bits, but I'm not comfortable with bitwise operation and they certainly don't seem obvious to me. On the other hand, I have coded with other people, and was really surprised that they didn't understand a certain thing (going from for loops to map for example). When you look at the number of programming languages and how different "idiomatic code" can be for the same task, I think it's a proof that different people think in a different way. For some low-level stuff will be very intuitive, for some it'll be functional programming, for others OO, etc. As some other people said, CS/SWE is very wide, it's hard to know everything at any point. Add to that that for most people working with high level software, knowing more about the business gives more leverage than learning more about CS fundamentals, you end up with people knowing widely different things. I think that in general, what's important is having a basic idea about most thing (known unknowns instead of unknown unknowns) so that you can look into stuff deeper if you need it.
nomel 5y ago
> I must question the value of a "software engineer" who is working at a layer so abstracted from the reality of implementation that they don't have to understand binary. To me it sounds like very productive work and a progression of technology. It's 2021, where 99.99% of us don't have to implement our own binary protocols, and work with computers rather than microcontrollers. If you're bit shifting, then it's most likely extremely low level work, which, as is the point of advancements in technology, is necessarily becoming more and more rare, or some case of NIH. I do work with binary protocols, so I'm very familiar with bit shifting, but I also realize this is all grunt work that I'm having to implement due to poor vendor support of usable/no libraries.

devit 5y ago

It is a clear sign that the person never had any genuine interest in computing, since that would have led to learning how a CPU works (it's the most important part of a computer!) and thus its instruction set, which would have of course led to learning about binary operators and shift operators. Instead the person clearly was motivated only by some specific application of computing or by making money.

yusefnapora 5y ago
To me this reads like someone arguing that a champion race car driver must never have had a genuine interest in automobiles if they've never rebuilt an engine.
dwaltrip 5y ago
Talk about gate keeping… You don’t get to decree what genuine interest in computing looks like for all of humanity.
- snailysnooze 5y ago
  Everyone thinks their work/what they know is important, that's it. Why don't study electrical engineering while we're at it. Even better, go even deeper and get us all some physics There's a reason Randall Munroe draw that butterflies xkcd comics.
foxes 5y ago
Clearly you do not have a genuine interesting in computing because you do not have a complete theory of everything, unifying gravity and all the fundamental forces, so really you have no idea how computation even happens at a fundamental level. Stop gatekeeping there’s going to be someone smarter than you. People work at different levels. The logic of how a huge program works can be abstracted above bit shifting. It is still computation. Maybe try be more understanding.