4 ms·

> Learning binary and knowing what binary is are two separate things. I don't think you need to learn binary to learn to code. Been doing this for 25 years work

> Learning binary and knowing what binary is are two separate things. I don't think you need to learn binary to learn to code. Been doing this for 25 years working at some big name companies, I don't know binary other than 1 is on, 0 is off. You're wearing your lack of CS knowledge like some kind of badge of honor. Of course you don't need deep CS knowledge to be a competent programmer. But almost undoubtedly you'll be a better programmer if you do know CS (I'm using binary here as a proxy for CS since I can't imagine having a deep knowledge of CS without knowing something fundamental like binary). How many times over those 25 years could a problem have been more efficiently solved (in programmer time or CPU time) if you had known about problem solving techniques (perhaps those related to binary knowledge for example) that you don't know from the world of CS? You'll never know... You may guess, but you'll never know what you don't know. It's not gatekeeping to say that to give someone a complete education to be a software developer we should provide them a knowledge of binary. We can teach programming in an approachable fashion AND teach binary in an approachable fashion. We do it every day at my college.

LoganDark 3y ago
Why are you talking about CS and nonexistent "problem solving related to binary"? By "knowing binary" we are not talking about knowing machine code instructions or the details of how they are executed, but literally knowing how to read and work with binary numbers (using bitwise operations). Which isn't necessary for problem-solving or implementing most algorithms. (Yes, there are algorithms that use bitwise operations. They're technically expendable and it doesn't make you any less of a programmer not to know everything. Especially if you're using Python or JavaScript!)
- feoren 3y ago
  > nonexistent "problem solving related to binary" Are you joking? Without understanding binary, you can't understand: - Numeric types, which numbers can be represented exactly, their failure modes, etc. - Bit-field flags, e.g. for enums - IP address masks and other bitmasks - Anything at all about modern cryptography - Anything at all about data compression - The various ways color is represented in images - Any custom binary format, MIDI, USB, anything low-level at all Honestly the list goes on and on. It's absolutely insane to me to hear people say that you can be a competent software engineer without understanding binary.
  - youreincorrect 3y ago
    It's absolutely insane to pretend most software engineers need to do any of these things. We're making billions of dollars in aggregate without knowing this stuff. Most people aren't writing their own data compression algorithms, and we sure as shit aren't writing cryptographic algorithms because we're told to leave that one to the experts (i.e., mathematicians). I'm guessing 80% don't even know bit-field flags and never have to use them, despite them being relatively simple. It would also take someone moderately capable at understanding math less than an hour to "learn." I learned them when I was 13 because I fucked around with MUD codebases, and I don't think I am special for it.
    - feoren 3y ago
      Do you realize that once you write code to solve a problem, that exact problem never needs to be solved again? Either you're solving new problems (and "new" can be slight -- new situation, new context, new hardware, new people, new company, whatever), or you're doing the compiler's job. If most people aren't solving new problems, then their job is bullshit. I frankly don't even understand how you can be confident that code copy-pasted from Stack Overflow actually does what you need it to do without understanding the fundamentals. > we sure as shit aren't writing cryptographic algorithms because we're told to leave that one to the experts. Shouldn't we all be striving to be an expert in something? If you're not working your way toward expertise, what are you doing? Why are the absolute fundamental basic building blocks for understanding how computers work and what programming languages are doing something that only "they" need to bother to learn?
      - youreincorrect 3y ago
        Most of the problems software engineers are solving today are business problems defined by stakeholders in a business. And yes, I agree we should be an expert in something. Harping on binary seems like a waste of time, however. I would certainly like that people are interested enough in the field that they spend their time learning as much as they can about CS, but I'm under no illusion that I'm going to automatically be more productive or better as a software engineer because I know bit-fields. PS: Thank you for downvoting me.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tikhonj 3y ago
"Knowing" binary isn't some deep, fundamental CS knowledge, it's a party trick. Knowing about different number systems in general is nice, but hardly foundational. The actual choice of what we consider part of the "core" CS curriculum is pretty arbitrary. Why do we consider, say, binary part of that but semantics not? Would it be "gatekeeping" to say that you can't be a good programmer without a passing knowledge of, say, operational and denotational semantics? Do you really have a "complete" CS education without it?
- WoodenChair 3y ago
  > "Knowing" binary isn't some deep, fundamental CS knowledge, it's a party trick. Reread my comment I never said binary in-and-of itself is "deep" knowledge. I said not knowing it is a proxy for a lack of CS knowledge more generally.
youreincorrect 3y ago
You're obligated to define exactly what you mean when you talk about "knowing" binary.
jstarfish 3y ago
> But almost undoubtedly you'll be a better programmer if you do know CS (I'm using binary here as a proxy for CS since I can't imagine having a deep knowledge of CS without knowing something fundamental like binary). How many times over those 25 years could a problem have been more efficiently solved (in programmer time or CPU time) if you had known about problem solving techniques (perhaps those related to binary knowledge for example) that you don't know from the world of CS? You'll never know... You're both right and wrong. Principles are a lot of cognitive debt to take on, and not strictly necessary to be functional. Literally anybody can sit down with an IDE and write code to merge spreadsheets or whatever the actual business need is. We teach this stuff to anybody with any interest. Kids, even! If someone thinks they want to be a plumber, they shouldn't start with a 4-year commitment to learning principles of hydraulics and mechanical engineering-- makes much more sense to apprentice, lay some pipe, and if it's the job for you, then go back and learn it at a deeper level. Doing it the other way is why college is so ridiculously expensive and most spend 5 to 6 figures on a major and then go manage at Target. After failing discrete math three times and giving up, I managed to make it almost 20 years in this industry before needing to learn anything about binary math-- and even then, it was only so I could understand how flags in old MUD code worked, for fun. Truth tables are important, but there has never come a logic problem I couldn't solve by taking a few extra steps to be explicit where you might reduce the logic to a compact blob of symbols. I'll never optimize code as well as someone classically-taught. I don't know what Big-O is-- and outside of a botched Google interview absolutely not a single employer or client has ever given a shit. Nobody has ever been victimized by my code. The "CS" way implies the academic approach is the only way to do things. It's the textbook definition of gatekeeping. All academia did was appropriate and institutionalize experiences yahoos like myself have always learned through ingenuity and trial-and-error. You've learned more than I do, so you have more tools in your bag. The only thing that sets us apart is that I won't be advancing the industry or publishing anything on arxiv anytime soon. Outside of that, you're going to struggle with quantifying how you're better than the self-taught without resorting to speculation or guild/union mentality (gatekeeping).
- WoodenChair 3y ago
  > Nobody has ever been victimized by my code. You don't know that. Actually all code that is inefficient is victimizing both the user (via performance) and the environment (unnecessary energy usage). I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I'm just saying we all don't know what we don't know. I'm sure my inefficient code has had many users and electric bills as victims. I released software before that subsequent versions where I had better CS techniques improved 100 fold in performance. I wasted my users' time before I learned how to do it better. > You've learned more than I do, so you have more tools in your bag. The only thing that sets us apart is that I won't be advancing the industry or publishing anything on arxiv anytime soon. Outside of that, you're going to struggle with quantifying how you're better than the self-taught without resorting to speculation or guild/union mentality (gatekeeping). You made a lot of assumptions about me without knowing my background. I was a self-taught programmer as a child/teenager and my undergrad degree was in economics, not CS. I went back to school to get a masters in CS which was difficult coming from a self-taught background. I did programming both paid and hobbyist for over a decade before that more formal education. And I write books read largely by self-taught programmers. Saying a full software development education includes binary and the fundamentals of CS is not gatekeeping, it's a low bar if we don't want inefficient software wasting users time and sucking energy. I'm not saying you have to start there, I'm saying it should be part of your education as a programmer whether self-taught or formally taught.

LoganDark 3y ago

Why are you talking about CS and nonexistent "problem solving related to binary"? By "knowing binary" we are not talking about knowing machine code instructions or the details of how they are executed, but literally knowing how to read and work with binary numbers (using bitwise operations). Which isn't necessary for problem-solving or implementing most algorithms. (Yes, there are algorithms that use bitwise operations. They're technically expendable and it doesn't make you any less of a programmer not to know everything. Especially if you're using Python or JavaScript!)

feoren 3y ago
> nonexistent "problem solving related to binary" Are you joking? Without understanding binary, you can't understand: - Numeric types, which numbers can be represented exactly, their failure modes, etc. - Bit-field flags, e.g. for enums - IP address masks and other bitmasks - Anything at all about modern cryptography - Anything at all about data compression - The various ways color is represented in images - Any custom binary format, MIDI, USB, anything low-level at all Honestly the list goes on and on. It's absolutely insane to me to hear people say that you can be a competent software engineer without understanding binary.
- youreincorrect 3y ago
  It's absolutely insane to pretend most software engineers need to do any of these things. We're making billions of dollars in aggregate without knowing this stuff. Most people aren't writing their own data compression algorithms, and we sure as shit aren't writing cryptographic algorithms because we're told to leave that one to the experts (i.e., mathematicians). I'm guessing 80% don't even know bit-field flags and never have to use them, despite them being relatively simple. It would also take someone moderately capable at understanding math less than an hour to "learn." I learned them when I was 13 because I fucked around with MUD codebases, and I don't think I am special for it.
  - feoren 3y ago
    Do you realize that once you write code to solve a problem, that exact problem never needs to be solved again? Either you're solving new problems (and "new" can be slight -- new situation, new context, new hardware, new people, new company, whatever), or you're doing the compiler's job. If most people aren't solving new problems, then their job is bullshit. I frankly don't even understand how you can be confident that code copy-pasted from Stack Overflow actually does what you need it to do without understanding the fundamentals. > we sure as shit aren't writing cryptographic algorithms because we're told to leave that one to the experts. Shouldn't we all be striving to be an expert in something? If you're not working your way toward expertise, what are you doing? Why are the absolute fundamental basic building blocks for understanding how computers work and what programming languages are doing something that only "they" need to bother to learn?
    - youreincorrect 3y ago
      Most of the problems software engineers are solving today are business problems defined by stakeholders in a business. And yes, I agree we should be an expert in something. Harping on binary seems like a waste of time, however. I would certainly like that people are interested enough in the field that they spend their time learning as much as they can about CS, but I'm under no illusion that I'm going to automatically be more productive or better as a software engineer because I know bit-fields. PS: Thank you for downvoting me.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tikhonj 3y ago

"Knowing" binary isn't some deep, fundamental CS knowledge, it's a party trick. Knowing about different number systems in general is nice, but hardly foundational. The actual choice of what we consider part of the "core" CS curriculum is pretty arbitrary. Why do we consider, say, binary part of that but semantics not? Would it be "gatekeeping" to say that you can't be a good programmer without a passing knowledge of, say, operational and denotational semantics? Do you really have a "complete" CS education without it?

WoodenChair 3y ago
> "Knowing" binary isn't some deep, fundamental CS knowledge, it's a party trick. Reread my comment I never said binary in-and-of itself is "deep" knowledge. I said not knowing it is a proxy for a lack of CS knowledge more generally.

youreincorrect 3y ago

You're obligated to define exactly what you mean when you talk about "knowing" binary.

jstarfish 3y ago

> But almost undoubtedly you'll be a better programmer if you do know CS (I'm using binary here as a proxy for CS since I can't imagine having a deep knowledge of CS without knowing something fundamental like binary). How many times over those 25 years could a problem have been more efficiently solved (in programmer time or CPU time) if you had known about problem solving techniques (perhaps those related to binary knowledge for example) that you don't know from the world of CS? You'll never know... You're both right and wrong. Principles are a lot of cognitive debt to take on, and not strictly necessary to be functional. Literally anybody can sit down with an IDE and write code to merge spreadsheets or whatever the actual business need is. We teach this stuff to anybody with any interest. Kids, even! If someone thinks they want to be a plumber, they shouldn't start with a 4-year commitment to learning principles of hydraulics and mechanical engineering-- makes much more sense to apprentice, lay some pipe, and if it's the job for you, then go back and learn it at a deeper level. Doing it the other way is why college is so ridiculously expensive and most spend 5 to 6 figures on a major and then go manage at Target. After failing discrete math three times and giving up, I managed to make it almost 20 years in this industry before needing to learn anything about binary math-- and even then, it was only so I could understand how flags in old MUD code worked, for fun. Truth tables are important, but there has never come a logic problem I couldn't solve by taking a few extra steps to be explicit where you might reduce the logic to a compact blob of symbols. I'll never optimize code as well as someone classically-taught. I don't know what Big-O is-- and outside of a botched Google interview absolutely not a single employer or client has ever given a shit. Nobody has ever been victimized by my code. The "CS" way implies the academic approach is the only way to do things. It's the textbook definition of gatekeeping. All academia did was appropriate and institutionalize experiences yahoos like myself have always learned through ingenuity and trial-and-error. You've learned more than I do, so you have more tools in your bag. The only thing that sets us apart is that I won't be advancing the industry or publishing anything on arxiv anytime soon. Outside of that, you're going to struggle with quantifying how you're better than the self-taught without resorting to speculation or guild/union mentality (gatekeeping).

WoodenChair 3y ago
> Nobody has ever been victimized by my code. You don't know that. Actually all code that is inefficient is victimizing both the user (via performance) and the environment (unnecessary energy usage). I'm not saying you've done anything wrong, I'm just saying we all don't know what we don't know. I'm sure my inefficient code has had many users and electric bills as victims. I released software before that subsequent versions where I had better CS techniques improved 100 fold in performance. I wasted my users' time before I learned how to do it better. > You've learned more than I do, so you have more tools in your bag. The only thing that sets us apart is that I won't be advancing the industry or publishing anything on arxiv anytime soon. Outside of that, you're going to struggle with quantifying how you're better than the self-taught without resorting to speculation or guild/union mentality (gatekeeping). You made a lot of assumptions about me without knowing my background. I was a self-taught programmer as a child/teenager and my undergrad degree was in economics, not CS. I went back to school to get a masters in CS which was difficult coming from a self-taught background. I did programming both paid and hobbyist for over a decade before that more formal education. And I write books read largely by self-taught programmers. Saying a full software development education includes binary and the fundamentals of CS is not gatekeeping, it's a low bar if we don't want inefficient software wasting users time and sucking energy. I'm not saying you have to start there, I'm saying it should be part of your education as a programmer whether self-taught or formally taught.