3 ms·

Having been in the industry literally decades I have worked on three compilers, two assemblers, a couple of DSLs (before we had some of the newer, fancier tools

Having been in the industry literally decades I have worked on three compilers, two assemblers, a couple of DSLs (before we had some of the newer, fancier tools), a few linkers, a couple of tools that needed to figure out dependencies for assembling a build, a couple of databases and a number of video games that specifically required a recursive descent tree walking algorithm. I consider this class of algorithms to be essential alogrithms in the areas where I have worked, but I also know there are algorithms in use other areas of software development that I have absolutely no practical use for, even though, to reiterate, I have literally been in software for decades. Just because an algorithm is of no use to me, doesn't mean it is no use to you. And vice versa.

Jensson 4y ago
I think you get what you look after. If you don't feel you want to try to push the boundaries of computing and instead prefer working with people then there are way more opportunities there, you don't even have to be good as long as you can connect clients to databases people will pay you. However to me that isn't why I got into programming, that sort of job isn't anything like the jobs I've had, and it is a bit sad to see people in those jobs drowning out most other opinions about programming. Conversely if you love algorithms and are sufficiently good at them then you can spend your entire career with that and never ever talk to non-technical people. Some people here thinks those jobs basically don't exist, but they do exist and are really important and well paid. And once you start working there you can just continue forever since there are so few who have experience working with those. Like, maybe Google asks algorithm questions since they want more people to improve their algorithms? I know they had low hanging fruit everywhere, they just lacked people who were competent enough at algorithms to solve them, their hiring bar is way too low to solve their hard problems. But they can't really raise it either, there aren't enough people that could pass them then.
- nowherebeen 4y ago
  > Conversely if you love algorithms and are sufficiently good at them then you can spend your entire career with that and never ever talk to non-technical people. I think there are two types of programmers. Ones that are like you that like algorithms for algorithms sake. And the other that like to solve real world problems. I got into software development because I want to solve problems for people. And not all of us likes algo. We prefer to learn stuff that we do use day to day because that has direct impact. For example, I just spent two months understanding functional programming. I use it in my code almost everyday, but it would be worthless in an interview where you are judge by your algo understanding. It’s frustrating when you realize how this standard is forced on every technical role, on companies that don’t even need algo experts because they are too small.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I've never written a parser because I love parsing. I actually kind of hate it, and have always been baffled by the people who nerd out on it. But, like, when I'm working on a problem that needs a parser, I'm glad I can bang one out! Like I said elsewhere: that's happened a bunch of times in my career.
    - setr 4y ago
      There’s another aspect of this that the knowledge and comfort of being able to put together a parser properly means you’re more likely to identify places where it would be useful, and consider it worth the trouble to do so. That is, to one without a hammer, nothing looks like a nail.
      - nowherebeen 4y ago
        > That is, to one without a hammer, nothing looks like a nail. They irony of this is that for one with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The real problem is that programmers have spent far too much time worrying about efficiency in the wrong places and at the wrong times; premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming. Donald Knuth. Knowing when to apply something is just as important as know where
        benj111 4y ago
        I think the metaphor still works. A lack of hammer implies only having a screwdriver. The point is you should have a tool box (and garage and workshop and spare bedroom) full of tools so you have the exact tool you actually need. What the Phillips head and pozidrive represent in this metaphor are left as an exercise for the reader. As is the adjustable spanner.

Jensson 4y ago

I think you get what you look after. If you don't feel you want to try to push the boundaries of computing and instead prefer working with people then there are way more opportunities there, you don't even have to be good as long as you can connect clients to databases people will pay you. However to me that isn't why I got into programming, that sort of job isn't anything like the jobs I've had, and it is a bit sad to see people in those jobs drowning out most other opinions about programming. Conversely if you love algorithms and are sufficiently good at them then you can spend your entire career with that and never ever talk to non-technical people. Some people here thinks those jobs basically don't exist, but they do exist and are really important and well paid. And once you start working there you can just continue forever since there are so few who have experience working with those. Like, maybe Google asks algorithm questions since they want more people to improve their algorithms? I know they had low hanging fruit everywhere, they just lacked people who were competent enough at algorithms to solve them, their hiring bar is way too low to solve their hard problems. But they can't really raise it either, there aren't enough people that could pass them then.

nowherebeen 4y ago
> Conversely if you love algorithms and are sufficiently good at them then you can spend your entire career with that and never ever talk to non-technical people. I think there are two types of programmers. Ones that are like you that like algorithms for algorithms sake. And the other that like to solve real world problems. I got into software development because I want to solve problems for people. And not all of us likes algo. We prefer to learn stuff that we do use day to day because that has direct impact. For example, I just spent two months understanding functional programming. I use it in my code almost everyday, but it would be worthless in an interview where you are judge by your algo understanding. It’s frustrating when you realize how this standard is forced on every technical role, on companies that don’t even need algo experts because they are too small.
- tptacek 4y ago
  I've never written a parser because I love parsing. I actually kind of hate it, and have always been baffled by the people who nerd out on it. But, like, when I'm working on a problem that needs a parser, I'm glad I can bang one out! Like I said elsewhere: that's happened a bunch of times in my career.
  - setr 4y ago
    There’s another aspect of this that the knowledge and comfort of being able to put together a parser properly means you’re more likely to identify places where it would be useful, and consider it worth the trouble to do so. That is, to one without a hammer, nothing looks like a nail.
    - nowherebeen 4y ago
      > That is, to one without a hammer, nothing looks like a nail. They irony of this is that for one with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The real problem is that programmers have spent far too much time worrying about efficiency in the wrong places and at the wrong times; premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming. Donald Knuth. Knowing when to apply something is just as important as know where
      - benj111 4y ago
        I think the metaphor still works. A lack of hammer implies only having a screwdriver. The point is you should have a tool box (and garage and workshop and spare bedroom) full of tools so you have the exact tool you actually need. What the Phillips head and pozidrive represent in this metaphor are left as an exercise for the reader. As is the adjustable spanner.