4 ms·

"If you can build large scale systems, you can code complex algorithms." Not sure I agree. Architecting/Maintaining huge systems and inventing very smart algor

by nadam 15y ago

"If you can build large scale systems, you can code complex algorithms." Not sure I agree. Architecting/Maintaining huge systems and inventing very smart algorithms are very different skills. Both can be learned to some extent, and a programmer should learn both to some level, but it is totally possible that one person is very stong in one but not that strong in the other. Look at the source of the splay tree: http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/ftp-site/splaying/ http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/ftp-site/splaying/ It is short, a programmer usually writes this amount of code in a day. Coming up with this made its creator famous. Algorithmization is like short distance running. You prepare a lot (think a lot) but probably write little code, and you have to be quite math-focused. Building huge systems is long distance running: you have to be strategical, you write lots of code, (and put together lots of third party components), you have to be 'wise'... In essence good progammers are usually good enough in both (I am sure this is true for the poster), but he/she can be particularly strong in one or the other.

jchonphoenix 15y ago
You're actually a little mislead. Proving that splay trees don't suck and inventing amortized analysis made Danny Sleator famous. Coming up with and coding it took him less than an hour (from his own mouth which might be embellished). If you look at the full proof of its log(n) running time, you'll realize that splay trees are incredibly complex. Sleator is also an amazing problem solver. He can outcome most of the people commenting on this thread but isn't necessarily the best architect. I believe algo is about problem solving. If you don't understand it, you don't know when to use which tool. Its unecessary if you're writing boilerplate and solved problems with frameworks but when you get to the google/amazon level, you can't just write good code. You need to understand algo to create dynamo and write dremel and mapreduce.
- nadam 15y ago
  I agree with everything you say I just don't understand why you say that I am mislead. Of course he could code it in one hour. Probably he came up with it in a bright moment. But a researcher has to think for years to come up with something so successful, and most of their ideas suck. "Sleator is also an amazing problem solver. He can outcome most of the people commenting on this thread but isn't necessarily the best architect." Which is what I think exactly. "I believe algo is about problem solving." Not just problem solving, but a kind of problem solving. algo is some kind of mathematical thinking. To be a extremely good at algorithmization you have to be extremely good in a kind of mathematical thinking. Of course those people who are extremely good at it like Sleator (or Von Neumann etc...) are extremely smart, so they are probably very good at other things also, but algorithmization is not a general purpose intelligence, it is a kind of 'mathematical intelligence'.
  - haberman 15y ago
    Friendly correction for both of you; it's "misled" not "mislead" (the latter is a verb that rhymes with "misdeed", not an adjective).
arethuza 15y ago
Speaking of very different skills, I used to have a developer working for me who was an absolute genius at fixing bugs - he would dive into complex code he had never seen before and be able to pinpoint and fix problems that had eluded other people. However, when confronted with a "clean sheet of paper" for the design of a new module he literally couldn't do it - even with a lot of coaching.
- robododo 15y ago
  Wow, glad I'm not the only one who's seen this. My problem is convincing managers that good bug fixers don't always make good clean-sheet coders. Nearly everyone has things their good at. The trick is figuring out how to utilize strengths while mitigating weaknesses.
  - rickmb 15y ago
    To make matters even more complicated, the good bug fixers aren't necessarily "just" maintenance developers with some savant-like bug fixing talent. Many of them are perfectly capable of building completely new features on top of an existing architecture, and they will get frustrated if they get stuck with just the maintenance jobs. Also, many, if not most, programmers don't handle the "clean sheet of paper" very well, no matter how much everyone else claims to love a greenfield project. Actual good clean-sheet coders are rare.
    - aaronblohowiak 15y ago
      >Also, many, if not most, programmers don't handle the "clean sheet of paper" very well, no matter how much everyone else claims to love a greenfield project. Actual good clean-sheet coders are rare. I think I get it right on my 2nd or 3rd clean sheet.
      - zaroth 15y ago
        extra soft, or extra strong?
- 15y ago

by nadam 15y ago

jchonphoenix 15y ago

You're actually a little mislead. Proving that splay trees don't suck and inventing amortized analysis made Danny Sleator famous. Coming up with and coding it took him less than an hour (from his own mouth which might be embellished). If you look at the full proof of its log(n) running time, you'll realize that splay trees are incredibly complex. Sleator is also an amazing problem solver. He can outcome most of the people commenting on this thread but isn't necessarily the best architect. I believe algo is about problem solving. If you don't understand it, you don't know when to use which tool. Its unecessary if you're writing boilerplate and solved problems with frameworks but when you get to the google/amazon level, you can't just write good code. You need to understand algo to create dynamo and write dremel and mapreduce.

nadam 15y ago
I agree with everything you say I just don't understand why you say that I am mislead. Of course he could code it in one hour. Probably he came up with it in a bright moment. But a researcher has to think for years to come up with something so successful, and most of their ideas suck. "Sleator is also an amazing problem solver. He can outcome most of the people commenting on this thread but isn't necessarily the best architect." Which is what I think exactly. "I believe algo is about problem solving." Not just problem solving, but a kind of problem solving. algo is some kind of mathematical thinking. To be a extremely good at algorithmization you have to be extremely good in a kind of mathematical thinking. Of course those people who are extremely good at it like Sleator (or Von Neumann etc...) are extremely smart, so they are probably very good at other things also, but algorithmization is not a general purpose intelligence, it is a kind of 'mathematical intelligence'.
- haberman 15y ago
  Friendly correction for both of you; it's "misled" not "mislead" (the latter is a verb that rhymes with "misdeed", not an adjective).

arethuza 15y ago

Speaking of very different skills, I used to have a developer working for me who was an absolute genius at fixing bugs - he would dive into complex code he had never seen before and be able to pinpoint and fix problems that had eluded other people. However, when confronted with a "clean sheet of paper" for the design of a new module he literally couldn't do it - even with a lot of coaching.

robododo 15y ago
Wow, glad I'm not the only one who's seen this. My problem is convincing managers that good bug fixers don't always make good clean-sheet coders. Nearly everyone has things their good at. The trick is figuring out how to utilize strengths while mitigating weaknesses.
- rickmb 15y ago
  To make matters even more complicated, the good bug fixers aren't necessarily "just" maintenance developers with some savant-like bug fixing talent. Many of them are perfectly capable of building completely new features on top of an existing architecture, and they will get frustrated if they get stuck with just the maintenance jobs. Also, many, if not most, programmers don't handle the "clean sheet of paper" very well, no matter how much everyone else claims to love a greenfield project. Actual good clean-sheet coders are rare.
  - aaronblohowiak 15y ago
    >Also, many, if not most, programmers don't handle the "clean sheet of paper" very well, no matter how much everyone else claims to love a greenfield project. Actual good clean-sheet coders are rare. I think I get it right on my 2nd or 3rd clean sheet.
    - zaroth 15y ago
      extra soft, or extra strong?
15y ago