3 ms·

Maybe a grad student has those things ( ;) ), but once you realise computers aren't the hard part about building software, you realise that there are a whole ho

by Volpe 15y ago

Maybe a grad student has those things ( ;) ), but once you realise computers aren't the hard part about building software, you realise that there are a whole host of skills you need to be a successful programmer, that have nothing to do with algorithms or computation. If all you have is a strong understanding of algorithms and computation... your just a computer geek. Doesn't make you a good 'programmer' (in the sense that you can produce something someone wants).

kunley 15y ago
What a ridiculous point. If you don't have such understanding, you're just copypasting someone else's instructions.
- Volpe 15y ago
  You are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Read it with a little less cynicism.
  - kunley 15y ago
    Well, I agree we probably were saying the same things using different words, as jarek put it, thus the misunderstanding.
gradstudent 15y ago
Huh? A good "programmer" is a good problem solver. You can't be a good problem solver if you don't have a conceptual understanding of algorithms or have any notion of what it means for a problem to be "hard".
- Volpe 15y ago
  Why do you need algorithms to be a good problem solver? Must of sucked to solve problems before the 60s given there were no good problem solvers :( In fact, how did mathematics and physics even develop at all before then, without knowing what was hard, or how to solve problems. Seriously, a lot of software doesn't require complex algorithms, sure there is a subset that does and that's cool. But saying someone isn't a programmer because they don't have a deep understanding of computation and algorithms is disregarding a large population of quality programmers.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jarek 15y ago
> If all you have is a strong understanding of algorithms and computation... your just a computer geek. Doesn't make you a good 'programmer' (in the sense that you can produce something someone wants). I think y'all are all using different terms (and I notice the parts-of-HN undercurrent of "technical skills don't matter, you need to be social and build products, startup pivot founder startup" but I digress). To me, someone who can use algorithms et al is a "programmer", which is largely orthogonal to being able to produce something someone wants, call them a developer or something. Not every programmer has to be social client facing; getting detailed functional specs and creating good code to fulfill those specs absolutely does make one a programmer.

by Volpe 15y ago

kunley 15y ago

What a ridiculous point. If you don't have such understanding, you're just copypasting someone else's instructions.

Volpe 15y ago
You are misinterpreting what I'm saying. Read it with a little less cynicism.
- kunley 15y ago
  Well, I agree we probably were saying the same things using different words, as jarek put it, thus the misunderstanding.

gradstudent 15y ago

Huh? A good "programmer" is a good problem solver. You can't be a good problem solver if you don't have a conceptual understanding of algorithms or have any notion of what it means for a problem to be "hard".

Volpe 15y ago
Why do you need algorithms to be a good problem solver? Must of sucked to solve problems before the 60s given there were no good problem solvers :( In fact, how did mathematics and physics even develop at all before then, without knowing what was hard, or how to solve problems. Seriously, a lot of software doesn't require complex algorithms, sure there is a subset that does and that's cool. But saying someone isn't a programmer because they don't have a deep understanding of computation and algorithms is disregarding a large population of quality programmers.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jarek 15y ago

> If all you have is a strong understanding of algorithms and computation... your just a computer geek. Doesn't make you a good 'programmer' (in the sense that you can produce something someone wants). I think y'all are all using different terms (and I notice the parts-of-HN undercurrent of "technical skills don't matter, you need to be social and build products, startup pivot founder startup" but I digress). To me, someone who can use algorithms et al is a "programmer", which is largely orthogonal to being able to produce something someone wants, call them a developer or something. Not every programmer has to be social client facing; getting detailed functional specs and creating good code to fulfill those specs absolutely does make one a programmer.