3 ms·
Pattern recognition is pretty much at the core of creative work in an engineering context, of which memorizing existing patterns is the first half.
by pillefitz 3y ago
Pattern recognition is pretty much at the core of creative work in an engineering context, of which memorizing existing patterns is the first half.
- b20000 3y agoif you just need to apply standard patterns than you are not actually inventing but just doing code monkey stuff, and you can’t really call that engineering
- dgunay 3y agoI wouldn't call constantly inventing new technology the only thing that qualifies as "engineering". It's about solving the problem under the given constraints. Sometimes that means evaluating existing solutions and determining that the problem is not novel and can be solved either in whole or in part with off the shelf software or textbook algorithms. The fact that this is the majority of business problems these days doesn't mean that no engineering is happening. IMO what actually is "not engineering" are the emotional, gut driven processes behind the software at some companies. No due diligence is done, requirements are scant, novelty frameworks are used, testing is a joke, etc. Anything resembling engineering is usually an accident in such places. I'm not saying process light environments are "not doing it right", I mean places that do nearly everything in an arbitrary, cargo-culted fashion.
- rcarr 3y agoYou literally sound like the kind of person who wants to reinvent the wheel.
- pillefitz 3y agoEvery professional discipline is typically preceded by years of study. Want to become a jazz musician? Great, first study recital of classical music for a couple years, then learn all there is to learn about scales, functional harmony, ... You learn the basic patterns, then you refine and combine those over years. For an outsider, this then looks like magic / creativity.
- hnfong 3y agoThe flaw in your argument is that you assume people are hired to do "real engineering" instead of "code monkeying". As you implicitly admitted, "code monkeying" is a skill. Whether this skill "matters" is really the hiring company/team's business, and none of yours.
- b20000 3y agothe problem is that leetcode style interviews are used by all companies now and not a % of the market. what you fail to see just like most other engineers is that it is being used to discriminate and as a tool for keeping compensation under control.
- hnfong 3y agoWhat I'm seeing is that the gatekeeping mechanism artificially restricts qualified candidates from passing the interview tests and the reduced supply of employable candidates causes the compensation of companies practicing leetcode interviews to rise instead (and it makes you bitter because you think you're better than them). I'm also seeing that given hiring leetcode-trained code monkeys seem to be working fine for the FAANG companies that practice it, perhaps they don't really need that many "real engineers" that can come up with creative solutions to problems. If that's the case they're just hiring the kind of people they actually need the most, and the accusation of "discrimination" doesn't really hold. Anyway, what I originally objected to was your allegation that reading books and learning standard solutions don't allow one to acquire skills and your attitude that applying standard solutions is something beneath you. I totally understand what you're objecting to (I find leetcode style questions sub-optimal, and when I'm on the interviewer side I don't do it, and that's a competitive advantage for me when everyone else is competing sub-optimally), but unfortunately I am not quite sympathetic to somebody who thinks to familiarizing oneself with standard solutions is beneath them.