7 ms·

This sort of contributes to giving self-taught programmers a rather bad name. The writeup is good, but the idea that Big O is "scary" is just absurd. It's an

This sort of contributes to giving self-taught programmers a rather bad name. The writeup is good, but the idea that Big O is "scary" is just absurd. It's an elementary concept that every working programmer should be familiar with, regardless of whether they're self-taught. Algorithms are not "scary". If you can't reason about algorithms, you may not be a very good programmer yet. To be clear, I really appreciate the writeup. I just wish it had been framed better. It should be clear that this is for beginner programmers, regardless of whether they have a degree or whether they're self-taught.

cocokr1sp 13y ago
Ahh yes. Let's berate the OP for being intimidated by a topic and then diving in and learning it on their own. This will really encourage others to learn on their own and contribute back.
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  Well, whether we like it or not, self-taught programmers are held to a higher standard. It doesn't help us to further the stereotype that self-taught programmers are afraid of the basics, haven't attained a general education in computer science on their own, or are less reliable than their peers who have degrees. Not trying to berate the OP. I'm trying to say I wish OP had framed it better.
justinlilly 13y ago
Thanks for the comment. I don't feel as though self-taught programmers have a bad name. I feel like they can lack some skills because the importance of them aren't lauded in their social circles. It wasn't until 5 years into my professional career that I was fortunate enough to work with someone with a computer science background, so the topics of Big-O never even came up. I think computer science has a bad wrap for being useless brain-teasers used only in interviews (within a subset of the target demographic of this article). Through the bits I've managed to pick up, I feel like they contribute to a better understanding of programming on a broader spectrum. While you may not see a body of knowledge that many people expect you to know (that you don't know) as scary, I can assure you that many people do. There are many similar topics that induce some amount of fear in me still: issues around multi-threading and race conditions, cryptography, deep understanding of networking stacks, and compilers to name a few. I'd also like to point out some of the phrasing you've chosen. 'the idea that Big O is "scary" is just absurd' -> 'If you can't reason about algorithms, you may not be a very good programmer'. This is the source of fear among self-taught programmers (and the source of my own fear in the above examples). We all want to be good at what we do, so let's try to lift each other up! :)
- sillysaurus 13y ago
  I understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately employers read articles like these and use them as justification to solidify their notion that self-taught programmers are less knowledgeable or less reliable than their peers with degrees, and hence should be paid less or not be hired at all. I've experienced it firsthand. You may argue "that's not a place you'd want to work at anyway," but unfortunately in a down economy one does not always have the luxury of rejecting work on principle. If you've ever looked into the eyes of your cat dying of cancer and felt ashamed that you didn't earn enough money to bring him the proper care to extend his life, then you'd possibly understand that prejudice against self-taught programmers who didn't have the opportunity to attend a university can be a real problem. Playing into the stereotype that we're all afraid to learn and happened to get lucky in getting a job isn't helpful. The work you're doing is wonderful. The problem I had with it is that a simple modification to it (not phrasing it in a condescending way toward self-taught programmers) would've made it so much better.
  - encoderer 13y ago
    You keep repeating this, but that doesn't make it true. Where I've worked and hired people -- in San Francisco and Silicon Valley -- there is little emphasis placed on formal eduction. Virtually none. Some companies have a reputation for liking degrees. Google, for example, but they are an exception. I don't think a self taught programmer, who takes his craft seriously and learns not just practical how-to but also data structures and algorithms, is at ANY disadvantage in today's job market.
    - sillysaurus 13y ago
      Well, you work in SF / SV. There's a whole Earth outside of those places. And those places are largely prejudiced against people who don't have degrees. I've experienced it firsthand. "Well, move!" Except it's not that easy when you have family.
    - justinlilly 13y ago
      I'll point out that I worked at Google for 2 years. I don't have a degree at all, much less in Computer Science.
charonn0 13y ago
I think the "scary" part is the notation. Any competent programmer, whether schooled or self-taught, is familiar with the concepts if not the notation.
baddox 13y ago
Being familiar with big O notation is not that same thing as being familiar with a few basic complexity classes. I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if a self-taught programmer was intimidated by big O notation, but I would be surprised if they were unfamiliar with the concept that hash map lookups are much faster than array searches, or that searching a sorted array is much faster than an unsorted array. You seem to be using "big O notation" to refer to fundamental competency about basic data structures. It's even quite possible and understandable for a self-taught programmer to, over time, figure out that certain big O classes refer to certain algorithms while still not understanding the meaning of the mathematical notation.
eksith 13y ago
but the idea that Big O is "scary" is just absurd. To you. I never studied things like these in school and getting to a point of "Oh that's what that means" was long and arduous as it pertained to a lot of scientific literature. Plain English, it seems, isn't in the tool set for a lot of very smart people who, coincidentally, feel that it's their duty to Explain All the Things. It's unfortunate that so many of them are deluded by the "x should be elementary" mindset or the like without regard to the language they use or the specificities of notation (Big-O in this case). I wish computer scientists can be more like Neil deGrasse Tyson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ulkX-DA9BM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ulkX-DA9BM
- Ixiaus 13y ago
  I'm as autodidactic as they come (high school drop out, self-taught in math, comp sci, psychology) and I to think this is elementary stuff. The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises. Would you take a scientist seriously if they didn't understand what the scientific method was? You're right. English is not the tool to use here in explaining theory, it's not capable of it. Mathematics and programming languages are!
  - eksith 13y ago
    It's unfortunate you've read my post as a claim to avoid actually learning these. I was pointing out that the "x is elementary" attitude doesn't help the process and I thought (from the video at least) some empathy in communication is warranted. It's ridiculous to expect clarity when no such thing exists in the language used to describe an idea in the first place. The OP went to the trouble of making such a post. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it gets the ball rolling. Whatever inadequacies can be corrected with feedback and I for one would like to see more people engage in humane explanations for things pertaining to their expertise. Big-O is "technical". Understanding of it comes with clear explanations. No where did I claim anything contrary to : "The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises." What I claimed was that language can soften the barrier to learning these as I imagine it did for you.

cocokr1sp 13y ago

Ahh yes. Let's berate the OP for being intimidated by a topic and then diving in and learning it on their own. This will really encourage others to learn on their own and contribute back.

sillysaurus 13y ago
Well, whether we like it or not, self-taught programmers are held to a higher standard. It doesn't help us to further the stereotype that self-taught programmers are afraid of the basics, haven't attained a general education in computer science on their own, or are less reliable than their peers who have degrees. Not trying to berate the OP. I'm trying to say I wish OP had framed it better.

justinlilly 13y ago

Thanks for the comment. I don't feel as though self-taught programmers have a bad name. I feel like they can lack some skills because the importance of them aren't lauded in their social circles. It wasn't until 5 years into my professional career that I was fortunate enough to work with someone with a computer science background, so the topics of Big-O never even came up. I think computer science has a bad wrap for being useless brain-teasers used only in interviews (within a subset of the target demographic of this article). Through the bits I've managed to pick up, I feel like they contribute to a better understanding of programming on a broader spectrum. While you may not see a body of knowledge that many people expect you to know (that you don't know) as scary, I can assure you that many people do. There are many similar topics that induce some amount of fear in me still: issues around multi-threading and race conditions, cryptography, deep understanding of networking stacks, and compilers to name a few. I'd also like to point out some of the phrasing you've chosen. 'the idea that Big O is "scary" is just absurd' -> 'If you can't reason about algorithms, you may not be a very good programmer'. This is the source of fear among self-taught programmers (and the source of my own fear in the above examples). We all want to be good at what we do, so let's try to lift each other up! :)

sillysaurus 13y ago
I understand where you're coming from, but unfortunately employers read articles like these and use them as justification to solidify their notion that self-taught programmers are less knowledgeable or less reliable than their peers with degrees, and hence should be paid less or not be hired at all. I've experienced it firsthand. You may argue "that's not a place you'd want to work at anyway," but unfortunately in a down economy one does not always have the luxury of rejecting work on principle. If you've ever looked into the eyes of your cat dying of cancer and felt ashamed that you didn't earn enough money to bring him the proper care to extend his life, then you'd possibly understand that prejudice against self-taught programmers who didn't have the opportunity to attend a university can be a real problem. Playing into the stereotype that we're all afraid to learn and happened to get lucky in getting a job isn't helpful. The work you're doing is wonderful. The problem I had with it is that a simple modification to it (not phrasing it in a condescending way toward self-taught programmers) would've made it so much better.
- encoderer 13y ago
  You keep repeating this, but that doesn't make it true. Where I've worked and hired people -- in San Francisco and Silicon Valley -- there is little emphasis placed on formal eduction. Virtually none. Some companies have a reputation for liking degrees. Google, for example, but they are an exception. I don't think a self taught programmer, who takes his craft seriously and learns not just practical how-to but also data structures and algorithms, is at ANY disadvantage in today's job market.
  - sillysaurus 13y ago
    Well, you work in SF / SV. There's a whole Earth outside of those places. And those places are largely prejudiced against people who don't have degrees. I've experienced it firsthand. "Well, move!" Except it's not that easy when you have family.
  - justinlilly 13y ago
    I'll point out that I worked at Google for 2 years. I don't have a degree at all, much less in Computer Science.

charonn0 13y ago

I think the "scary" part is the notation. Any competent programmer, whether schooled or self-taught, is familiar with the concepts if not the notation.

baddox 13y ago

Being familiar with big O notation is not that same thing as being familiar with a few basic complexity classes. I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if a self-taught programmer was intimidated by big O notation, but I would be surprised if they were unfamiliar with the concept that hash map lookups are much faster than array searches, or that searching a sorted array is much faster than an unsorted array. You seem to be using "big O notation" to refer to fundamental competency about basic data structures. It's even quite possible and understandable for a self-taught programmer to, over time, figure out that certain big O classes refer to certain algorithms while still not understanding the meaning of the mathematical notation.

eksith 13y ago

but the idea that Big O is "scary" is just absurd. To you. I never studied things like these in school and getting to a point of "Oh that's what that means" was long and arduous as it pertained to a lot of scientific literature. Plain English, it seems, isn't in the tool set for a lot of very smart people who, coincidentally, feel that it's their duty to Explain All the Things. It's unfortunate that so many of them are deluded by the "x should be elementary" mindset or the like without regard to the language they use or the specificities of notation (Big-O in this case). I wish computer scientists can be more like Neil deGrasse Tyson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ulkX-DA9BM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ulkX-DA9BM

Ixiaus 13y ago
I'm as autodidactic as they come (high school drop out, self-taught in math, comp sci, psychology) and I to think this is elementary stuff. The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises. Would you take a scientist seriously if they didn't understand what the scientific method was? You're right. English is not the tool to use here in explaining theory, it's not capable of it. Mathematics and programming languages are!
- eksith 13y ago
  It's unfortunate you've read my post as a claim to avoid actually learning these. I was pointing out that the "x is elementary" attitude doesn't help the process and I thought (from the video at least) some empathy in communication is warranted. It's ridiculous to expect clarity when no such thing exists in the language used to describe an idea in the first place. The OP went to the trouble of making such a post. Maybe it wasn't perfect, but it gets the ball rolling. Whatever inadequacies can be corrected with feedback and I for one would like to see more people engage in humane explanations for things pertaining to their expertise. Big-O is "technical". Understanding of it comes with clear explanations. No where did I claim anything contrary to : "The correct way to "understand these things" is to learn the math, the theory, and do the exercises." What I claimed was that language can soften the barrier to learning these as I imagine it did for you.