4 ms·

> We need some people who can do things like making those libraries. Do we? For things as simple as copilot tends to put out? Why? Do you also believe we need

by Kamq 4y ago

> We need some people who can do things like making those libraries. Do we? For things as simple as copilot tends to put out? Why? Do you also believe we need to keep people around that do other automated things? Plowing fields by hand? Hand compiling higher level languages (as the first lisp compiler was bootstrapped)? I mean, keep the information around. Don't go burning textbooks on subjects just because we automated something. But, what exactly is the value proposition of having students do these things? > It also seems plausible that the people who have at least some of the knowledge and judgement to do that effectively will, on average, be more effective on more mundane tasks as well. And your claim is also that this is the only way to get the requisite knowledge and judgement? Have students take in a string from stdin with a format that changes every semester, munge it around, and do things with it instead. > Larry Wall is one who wrote (somewhat drolly) about the virtues of laziness, but there was nothing lazy about what he did. As someone who has done string munging in C, I'm not entirely convinced that creating perl isn't an effort saving defense mechanism (only half joking).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mannykannot 4y ago
I find this a very puzzling reply, and it may be that I misunderstood to what you are referring with the "they're" in "They're, for the most part, things we tried to put in libraries (or more ideally language standard libraries for a lot of things.)" It might refer to "the things Copilot does for you" or alternatively "the things you need to know yourself to be in industry." The thing is, regardless of which way you meant it, we need some people who can make the sort of libraries we need in part precisely because automation such as Copilot is no substitute (at least not yet.) This observation does not (and is not intended to) endorse current methods of instruction or hiring; on the contrary, it supports spcebar's view that riding your way to a degree, certificate or entry-level position on the back of Copilot is not doing yourself any favors. The point about Larry Wall is that we don't get labor-saving tools without someone making an effort.
- Kamq 4y ago
  > I find this a very puzzling reply, and it may be that I misunderstood to what you are referring with the "they're" in "They're, for the most part, things we tried to put in libraries (or more ideally language standard libraries for a lot of things.)" It might refer to "the things Copilot does for you" or alternatively "the things you need to know yourself to be in industry." I do see how that could be ambiguous. That's on me. I was referring to "the things Copilot does for you". Generally speaking trivial (or near trivial) algorithms. > The thing is, regardless of which way you meant it, we need some people who can make the sort of libraries we need in part precisely because automation such as Copilot is no substitute Fine. Some people might need to be able to implement and maintain libraries filled with generic algorithms, especially language maintainers. That's still a very different claim from the original "this is information that you're going to need if you actually want to go into the field". That claim implies that it's a universal requirement, whereas the reality is the vast majority probably don't need that knowledge. Implementing these things is tedious, and results in a bunch of code that has to be maintained vs using something out of the standard library. For example, sort or max functions, which are at the intersection of what I see copilot generate a lot and intro to CS classes. Even without copilot, that's not really a skill that the average practitioner needs to have ready at all times, in fact I'd probably block a PR that implemented either of those things in my projects, it results in extra code that needs to be maintained and can be broken by a typo or something silly. > The point about Larry Wall is that we don't get labor-saving tools without someone making an effort. My comment about perl was sarcastic, and probably not helpful. That, also, is my bad.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    To be clear, I take it that you are saying that a) everything Copilot is currently capable of can be found in libraries, and consequently b) learning how to do those things oneself is a waste of time, so c) it does not matter if people entering industry as software developers cannot do that themselves. My point is that even if this is the case for a majority of such people, we still need the people who make all the library contents that are beyond Coplilot's capabilities, and we both seem to agree that its capabilities are limited. The thing is, a world in which a lot of people can be productive software developers, without even being capable of writing the sort of algorithms Copilot is capable of, is highly dependent on the people who design and write the libraries that implement not only those algorithms, but also a great deal else that is beyond Copilot's capabilities. The industry may not need everyone to be able to do that, but then it is entirely dependent on those who can. One can certainly argue that there is no point in an education that stops at the ability to reproduce what Copilot does, but that would be something of a straw man, as education does not typically stop there. I agree that it makes a poor hiring benchmark, regardless of the role being filled.

by Kamq 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mannykannot 4y ago

I find this a very puzzling reply, and it may be that I misunderstood to what you are referring with the "they're" in "They're, for the most part, things we tried to put in libraries (or more ideally language standard libraries for a lot of things.)" It might refer to "the things Copilot does for you" or alternatively "the things you need to know yourself to be in industry." The thing is, regardless of which way you meant it, we need some people who can make the sort of libraries we need in part precisely because automation such as Copilot is no substitute (at least not yet.) This observation does not (and is not intended to) endorse current methods of instruction or hiring; on the contrary, it supports spcebar's view that riding your way to a degree, certificate or entry-level position on the back of Copilot is not doing yourself any favors. The point about Larry Wall is that we don't get labor-saving tools without someone making an effort.

Kamq 4y ago
> I find this a very puzzling reply, and it may be that I misunderstood to what you are referring with the "they're" in "They're, for the most part, things we tried to put in libraries (or more ideally language standard libraries for a lot of things.)" It might refer to "the things Copilot does for you" or alternatively "the things you need to know yourself to be in industry." I do see how that could be ambiguous. That's on me. I was referring to "the things Copilot does for you". Generally speaking trivial (or near trivial) algorithms. > The thing is, regardless of which way you meant it, we need some people who can make the sort of libraries we need in part precisely because automation such as Copilot is no substitute Fine. Some people might need to be able to implement and maintain libraries filled with generic algorithms, especially language maintainers. That's still a very different claim from the original "this is information that you're going to need if you actually want to go into the field". That claim implies that it's a universal requirement, whereas the reality is the vast majority probably don't need that knowledge. Implementing these things is tedious, and results in a bunch of code that has to be maintained vs using something out of the standard library. For example, sort or max functions, which are at the intersection of what I see copilot generate a lot and intro to CS classes. Even without copilot, that's not really a skill that the average practitioner needs to have ready at all times, in fact I'd probably block a PR that implemented either of those things in my projects, it results in extra code that needs to be maintained and can be broken by a typo or something silly. > The point about Larry Wall is that we don't get labor-saving tools without someone making an effort. My comment about perl was sarcastic, and probably not helpful. That, also, is my bad.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  To be clear, I take it that you are saying that a) everything Copilot is currently capable of can be found in libraries, and consequently b) learning how to do those things oneself is a waste of time, so c) it does not matter if people entering industry as software developers cannot do that themselves. My point is that even if this is the case for a majority of such people, we still need the people who make all the library contents that are beyond Coplilot's capabilities, and we both seem to agree that its capabilities are limited. The thing is, a world in which a lot of people can be productive software developers, without even being capable of writing the sort of algorithms Copilot is capable of, is highly dependent on the people who design and write the libraries that implement not only those algorithms, but also a great deal else that is beyond Copilot's capabilities. The industry may not need everyone to be able to do that, but then it is entirely dependent on those who can. One can certainly argue that there is no point in an education that stops at the ability to reproduce what Copilot does, but that would be something of a straw man, as education does not typically stop there. I agree that it makes a poor hiring benchmark, regardless of the role being filled.