6 ms·

Yes, this is CompSci, not software engineering

peteretep 14y ago
Then perhaps the author shouldn't be presenting them as practical issues, and claim that people who don't know the answers either shouldn't be programmers, or work in some tiny niche. You read the context article he linked to, right?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- mquander 14y ago
  Just to get the facts straight, the linked article had this to say: If you can't answer the majority of the questions on these four papers, and you're working or intend to work as a software developer, you should ask yourself why — most likely you're either you're missing something you really should know, or you're lucky enough to be working within a narrow area where your deficit doesn't matter. The reader can judge for themselves whether this is claiming that "people who don't know the answers shouldn't be programmers." I personally find that characterization rather rude toward the author.
  - peteretep 14y ago
    I guess it depends if you interpret: > you should ask yourself why As referring to "you can't answer the majority of the questions" or "you're working or intend to work as a software developer". I read it as the latter, but I guess it could also be read as the former.
    - cperciva 14y ago
      The intention was "why don't you know these things", in the sense of "I really think you should go out and learn / re-learn these areas, because I think it's very likely that knowing them better will help you produce better code".
  - clinth 14y ago
    > or you're lucky enough to be working within a narrow area where your deficit doesn't matter This implies that non-algorithmic work is a narrow area. In my experience, it's the vast majority.
    - cperciva 14y ago
      You've only seen 1/4 of the exam so far. Sure, there's plenty of software development which doesn't involve fancy algorithms or data structures... avoiding computer architecture, operating systems, mathematics, networking, databases, and distributed systems as well is a bit harder.
      - clinth 14y ago
        I see that you're the author. Thanks for replying! > Sure, there's plenty of software development which doesn't involve fancy algorithms or data structures... avoiding computer architecture, operating systems, mathematics, networking, databases, and distributed systems as well is a bit harder. This is at odds with the statement in your article that jumped out at me: "If you can't answer the majority of the questions on these four papers, and you're working or intend to work as a software developer, you should ask yourself why--" I disagree, and furthermore, adding more topics means that your assertion is going to be less accurate. Of course, it's better to know more, and I'm glad to have a computer science degree. However, I think that conflating having a computer science background and general software development is confirmation bias. I don't have data to back me up, but I believe that it's more common to simply not need to know what a bipartite graph is, or even a majority set of these topics. Given the theoretical grounding of the question in your first block, I'm guessing that parts 2-4 will be similarly structured. Computer science is one slice of software development. Software development is a huge, deep field. A software development exam could just as easily contain an exam including the following topics: communicating effectively through email, distilling requirements from customers, writing meaningful commit messages, testing theory, or hundreds of other non-theoretical topics. What I'm trying to say is that your exam is a good reminder of computer science at the root of many of the fields of knowledge in software, and is fun, but it's not representative of software development. In a given year, most software developers are going to spend more time puzzling through garden-variety implementation bugs than thinking about any two of the questions you list. Which is why they're not "lucky". :)
pjmlp 14y ago
It depends on the country. My degree in Portugal was a 5 year degree with lectures from computer science and software engineering.

Then perhaps the author shouldn't be presenting them as practical issues, and claim that people who don't know the answers either shouldn't be programmers, or work in some tiny niche. You read the context article he linked to, right?

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
mquander 14y ago
Just to get the facts straight, the linked article had this to say: If you can't answer the majority of the questions on these four papers, and you're working or intend to work as a software developer, you should ask yourself why — most likely you're either you're missing something you really should know, or you're lucky enough to be working within a narrow area where your deficit doesn't matter. The reader can judge for themselves whether this is claiming that "people who don't know the answers shouldn't be programmers." I personally find that characterization rather rude toward the author.
- peteretep 14y ago
  I guess it depends if you interpret: > you should ask yourself why As referring to "you can't answer the majority of the questions" or "you're working or intend to work as a software developer". I read it as the latter, but I guess it could also be read as the former.
  - cperciva 14y ago
    The intention was "why don't you know these things", in the sense of "I really think you should go out and learn / re-learn these areas, because I think it's very likely that knowing them better will help you produce better code".
- clinth 14y ago
  > or you're lucky enough to be working within a narrow area where your deficit doesn't matter This implies that non-algorithmic work is a narrow area. In my experience, it's the vast majority.
  - cperciva 14y ago
    You've only seen 1/4 of the exam so far. Sure, there's plenty of software development which doesn't involve fancy algorithms or data structures... avoiding computer architecture, operating systems, mathematics, networking, databases, and distributed systems as well is a bit harder.
    - clinth 14y ago
      I see that you're the author. Thanks for replying! > Sure, there's plenty of software development which doesn't involve fancy algorithms or data structures... avoiding computer architecture, operating systems, mathematics, networking, databases, and distributed systems as well is a bit harder. This is at odds with the statement in your article that jumped out at me: "If you can't answer the majority of the questions on these four papers, and you're working or intend to work as a software developer, you should ask yourself why--" I disagree, and furthermore, adding more topics means that your assertion is going to be less accurate. Of course, it's better to know more, and I'm glad to have a computer science degree. However, I think that conflating having a computer science background and general software development is confirmation bias. I don't have data to back me up, but I believe that it's more common to simply not need to know what a bipartite graph is, or even a majority set of these topics. Given the theoretical grounding of the question in your first block, I'm guessing that parts 2-4 will be similarly structured. Computer science is one slice of software development. Software development is a huge, deep field. A software development exam could just as easily contain an exam including the following topics: communicating effectively through email, distilling requirements from customers, writing meaningful commit messages, testing theory, or hundreds of other non-theoretical topics. What I'm trying to say is that your exam is a good reminder of computer science at the root of many of the fields of knowledge in software, and is fun, but it's not representative of software development. In a given year, most software developers are going to spend more time puzzling through garden-variety implementation bugs than thinking about any two of the questions you list. Which is why they're not "lucky". :)

pjmlp 14y ago

It depends on the country. My degree in Portugal was a 5 year degree with lectures from computer science and software engineering.