6 ms·

There is very little all programmers should be required to have in common. The field is just that big now. 9 times out of 10 a list like this includes a treati

by platz 12y ago

There is very little all programmers should be required to have in common. The field is just that big now. 9 times out of 10 a list like this includes a treatise on floating point number representation, which while useful, probably isn't of utmost importance in the 21st century, but hey, at one time folks thought that was required for 'all programmers' to read. At least this list does seem more up to date and relevant. I just wish we'd stop with 'all X should' titles. Its demeaning and inaccurate.

recursive 12y ago
Floating point behavior still represents a significant portion of new questions asked on stack overflow. I'd say it's still very relevant.
- theoh 12y ago
  Considering JavaScript makes it difficult to avoid, that's not surprising... And since js is probably one of the common denominators of much activity on the fringes of programming it seems like floating point should be widely discussed. Unrelated to numeric computing, my favourite thing would be Butler Lampson's Hints for Computer System Design.
  - grobinson 12y ago
    I've worked with code in the past where the previous developers didn't understand that there was a difference between an integer in a string (i.e. var x = '10';) and an integer (i.e. var x = 10; ). In some ways weak typing and automatic type conversion is quite dangerous because it can encourage beginners to adopt bad practice and be non the wiser. Edit: Changed 'In some ways duck typing' to 'In some ways weak typing' as rightly pointed out below.
    - klibertp 12y ago
      > duck typing and automatic type conversion It's weak typing (or equivalently "automatic type conversion" as you say) that is to blame. "Duck typing" - also "structural polymorphism", "subtyping polymorphism", know in OCaml as "polymorphic variants" and adopted as a default by Go's interfaces semantics - would only enable "'10' + 10" if String type would have a method "+(x:Number)", which most likely is not there, or if it is it's explicitly laid out. It's weak typing - ie. language trying to coerce elements of expressions to the types which make the whole expressions make sense, with implicit rules that no one ever reads - that's dangerous. Sorry for being this pedantic, but while I'd like to see less weak typing in languages (outside of some specific domains, like AWK) I'd also would like to see more "duck typing", because it's more convenient than nominative polymorphism and exactly as safe.
      - grobinson 12y ago
        Sorry, you're absolutely right! I had confused the two when writing my post.
kelukelugames 12y ago
"X all Y should" is a clickbait title prohibited by HN.
dj-wonk 12y ago
> There is very little all programmers should be required to have in common. We don't need to say "all must know X things" in order to convey a notion of a well-rounded programmer. Of course we don't have to agree. Still, generally speaking, I think the bare minimum is this: the ability to solve your problems with the languages and tools you know in a reasonable amount of time. But that doesn't say much, so any list needs to get more specific: * ability to use your tools * ability to decompose a problem * ability to debug a problem * ability to communicate intent via code * ability to communicate intent via language
RobLach 12y ago
Really the only thing "every programmer" should know is how to efficiently look up information relevant to whatever their current goals are.
tikhonj 12y ago
The beauty behind fundamental programming language concepts—which make up the majority of this list—is that they apply to programming in general. They are all widely used abstractions, underpinnings for common technologies or powerful mental tools. Most importantly, they promote a sort of higher-order reasoning and mathematical thinking that's extremely powerful but rarely taught well. Are these strictly required for anyone? I suppose not. But they would be useful for everyone, and we'd all be better off if everyone had a stronger understanding of these things. Also, I think finding "should" as demeaning is a bit much. "Should" means that the author thinks the benefits of knowing something outweighs the costs of learning it, nothing more. Pretty reasonable. Doing anything else is reading too much into it.
- pron 12y ago
  > The beauty behind fundamental programming language concepts—which make up the majority of this list—is that they apply to programming in general. I would disagree (with the extent of their applicability and general usefulness). Not that this isn't somewhat useful to many or most programmers -- you may certainly be right about that -- but there are other subjects (like data structures, for example) that are probably a lot more useful, and serve as much more fundamental underpinning for common technologies[1]. So, yes, we'd all benefits if more programmers learned this stuff, but we'd benefit even more if they spend their time on even more important/general CS topics. Because programmers spend much of their time in code they sometimes tend to place too much emphasis on code over working, well-behaving, performant running programs. Producing such programs requires a lot more than "the right" programming style: it requires a good understanding of hardware, of requirement analysis, of common failure modes, of algorithms and data structures. Programming style (or language) is just a part of what's required, and probably among the least important parts. The widespread belief among PL people is that "good" programming languages (for your own definition/preference of "good") promote good working software, but not only has that never been proven, there isn't much evidence to suggest this is even true at all (now, I'm not saying it's not true, but just playing devil's advocate and pointing out it isn't evidently true). [1] Proof: binary (and other types of trees) trees are used in every programming language, while classes, object, higher order function or monads are most certainly not; ergo: you can certainly program -- and produce good, working software -- without classes/object/high-order-functions/monads, but you can't produce good software (in general, that is), without knowledge of trees (and/or other data structures).
misuba 12y ago
A few years ago when there was a wave of books titled "1000 ____s to ____ Before You Die," I really wished I'd been in a position to get a book published called "Never Mind The 1000 Things, Just Die."
momo-reina 12y ago
Actually I'd argue that there are quite a few things that programmers should have in common, if by programmers we're talking about serious engineers/computer scientis[1] and not "amateur-hour web designers"[2]. Knowledge of the fundamental concepts talked about on that list of papers, and the history therewith, is what allows us to go past the current level of engineering and actually reach greater heights. Most of the emphasis nowadays is spent on knowledge of specific toolchains, frameworks, etc, instead of actually learning WHY and HOW these things work. From that basic foundation you can then go into any field and learn the semantics, details, and problem-specific techniques to deal with the problems presented. Without that foundation, we're all just floundering around, becoming proficient in using these tools without actually KNOWING how they work and therefore unable to take them to the next level. [1] - A conversation with Alan Kay https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523 [2] - JavaScript isn't Scheme http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isnt-scheme/ http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isnt...
- sneak 12y ago
  I started programming seventeen years ago as an "amateur-hour web designer". This sort of attitude is not productive or helpful to our rapidly-growing industry.
  - nightski 12y ago
    Would you still consider yourself an "amateur-hour web designer"? If not, why did you improve? Should we not aspire to be better?
    - lmm 12y ago
      I've learnt from various sources, but none of them were papers. There is no one-size-fits-all teaching or learning method. And rudeness and insults are going to make people less likely to learn, not more.
      - grobinson 12y ago
mietek 12y ago
Have programmers stopped representing monetary values using floating point yet?
- BugBrother 12y ago
  JavaScript still only has floating point, I think... So no.
fsloth 12y ago
"There is very little all programmers should be required to have in common" Especially the closer one gets to domain specific things, yes. But I think it is beneficial to all who develop software to realize from time to time how deep the rabbit hole of implementation specific complexities goes, mainly so they understand how to design their systems without stepping in any "obvious" implementation specific landmines. But in general I think your post validates the claim, since I really need to be aware of of all the traps in the floating point number representation to do my programming job properly :)
gaius 12y ago
The guys at Sony might disagree with you. How to secure a network or a mainframe was known in the 1970s, but who needs to know all that legacy systems crap, right? OO look new JS framework!!
- tim333 12y ago
  I think the Sony issues illustrate platz's point "There is very little all programmers should be required to have in common. The field is just that big now." In a company like Sony you need some guys that specialise in security and prevention of hacking, and some that specialise in other stuff.
  - gaius 12y ago
    Umm, no, not really, it has to be baked into everything you do, even the most junior programmer working on a website has to know e.g. about SQL injection.
  - imanaccount247 12y ago
    No, you can't just have "some guys that specialize in security". That's exactly what 99%+ of software is full of obvious security holes. 99%+ of developers don't know anything about or care anything about security. Security is a process not a product remember? Everyone has to be actively part of it all the time. You don't churn out buggy exploitable software and then expect some "security experts" to somehow magically make it secure.
    - tim333 12y ago
      I see your point but if 99%+ of developers are rubbish at security what are you going to do about it? a) Hope they suddenly improve, which is probably not going to happen b) Accept they have limits and encourage them to use systems and frameworks that are hard to screw up on, written people who are good at security? I note in the Sony hack the only computers that survived basically intact were Macs, not I guess because their owners understood security but because they were well designed and idiot friendly.

by platz 12y ago

recursive 12y ago

Floating point behavior still represents a significant portion of new questions asked on stack overflow. I'd say it's still very relevant.

theoh 12y ago
Considering JavaScript makes it difficult to avoid, that's not surprising... And since js is probably one of the common denominators of much activity on the fringes of programming it seems like floating point should be widely discussed. Unrelated to numeric computing, my favourite thing would be Butler Lampson's Hints for Computer System Design.
- grobinson 12y ago
  I've worked with code in the past where the previous developers didn't understand that there was a difference between an integer in a string (i.e. var x = '10';) and an integer (i.e. var x = 10; ). In some ways weak typing and automatic type conversion is quite dangerous because it can encourage beginners to adopt bad practice and be non the wiser. Edit: Changed 'In some ways duck typing' to 'In some ways weak typing' as rightly pointed out below.
  - klibertp 12y ago
    > duck typing and automatic type conversion It's weak typing (or equivalently "automatic type conversion" as you say) that is to blame. "Duck typing" - also "structural polymorphism", "subtyping polymorphism", know in OCaml as "polymorphic variants" and adopted as a default by Go's interfaces semantics - would only enable "'10' + 10" if String type would have a method "+(x:Number)", which most likely is not there, or if it is it's explicitly laid out. It's weak typing - ie. language trying to coerce elements of expressions to the types which make the whole expressions make sense, with implicit rules that no one ever reads - that's dangerous. Sorry for being this pedantic, but while I'd like to see less weak typing in languages (outside of some specific domains, like AWK) I'd also would like to see more "duck typing", because it's more convenient than nominative polymorphism and exactly as safe.
    - grobinson 12y ago
      Sorry, you're absolutely right! I had confused the two when writing my post.

kelukelugames 12y ago

"X all Y should" is a clickbait title prohibited by HN.

dj-wonk 12y ago

> There is very little all programmers should be required to have in common. We don't need to say "all must know X things" in order to convey a notion of a well-rounded programmer. Of course we don't have to agree. Still, generally speaking, I think the bare minimum is this: the ability to solve your problems with the languages and tools you know in a reasonable amount of time. But that doesn't say much, so any list needs to get more specific: * ability to use your tools * ability to decompose a problem * ability to debug a problem * ability to communicate intent via code * ability to communicate intent via language

RobLach 12y ago

Really the only thing "every programmer" should know is how to efficiently look up information relevant to whatever their current goals are.

tikhonj 12y ago

The beauty behind fundamental programming language concepts—which make up the majority of this list—is that they apply to programming in general. They are all widely used abstractions, underpinnings for common technologies or powerful mental tools. Most importantly, they promote a sort of higher-order reasoning and mathematical thinking that's extremely powerful but rarely taught well. Are these strictly required for anyone? I suppose not. But they would be useful for everyone, and we'd all be better off if everyone had a stronger understanding of these things. Also, I think finding "should" as demeaning is a bit much. "Should" means that the author thinks the benefits of knowing something outweighs the costs of learning it, nothing more. Pretty reasonable. Doing anything else is reading too much into it.

pron 12y ago
> The beauty behind fundamental programming language concepts—which make up the majority of this list—is that they apply to programming in general. I would disagree (with the extent of their applicability and general usefulness). Not that this isn't somewhat useful to many or most programmers -- you may certainly be right about that -- but there are other subjects (like data structures, for example) that are probably a lot more useful, and serve as much more fundamental underpinning for common technologies[1]. So, yes, we'd all benefits if more programmers learned this stuff, but we'd benefit even more if they spend their time on even more important/general CS topics. Because programmers spend much of their time in code they sometimes tend to place too much emphasis on code over working, well-behaving, performant running programs. Producing such programs requires a lot more than "the right" programming style: it requires a good understanding of hardware, of requirement analysis, of common failure modes, of algorithms and data structures. Programming style (or language) is just a part of what's required, and probably among the least important parts. The widespread belief among PL people is that "good" programming languages (for your own definition/preference of "good") promote good working software, but not only has that never been proven, there isn't much evidence to suggest this is even true at all (now, I'm not saying it's not true, but just playing devil's advocate and pointing out it isn't evidently true). [1] Proof: binary (and other types of trees) trees are used in every programming language, while classes, object, higher order function or monads are most certainly not; ergo: you can certainly program -- and produce good, working software -- without classes/object/high-order-functions/monads, but you can't produce good software (in general, that is), without knowledge of trees (and/or other data structures).

misuba 12y ago

A few years ago when there was a wave of books titled "1000 ____s to ____ Before You Die," I really wished I'd been in a position to get a book published called "Never Mind The 1000 Things, Just Die."

momo-reina 12y ago

Actually I'd argue that there are quite a few things that programmers should have in common, if by programmers we're talking about serious engineers/computer scientis[1] and not "amateur-hour web designers"[2]. Knowledge of the fundamental concepts talked about on that list of papers, and the history therewith, is what allows us to go past the current level of engineering and actually reach greater heights. Most of the emphasis nowadays is spent on knowledge of specific toolchains, frameworks, etc, instead of actually learning WHY and HOW these things work. From that basic foundation you can then go into any field and learn the semantics, details, and problem-specific techniques to deal with the problems presented. Without that foundation, we're all just floundering around, becoming proficient in using these tools without actually KNOWING how they work and therefore unable to take them to the next level. [1] - A conversation with Alan Kay https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523 [2] - JavaScript isn't Scheme http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isnt-scheme/ http://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2013/07/18/javascript-isnt...

sneak 12y ago
I started programming seventeen years ago as an "amateur-hour web designer". This sort of attitude is not productive or helpful to our rapidly-growing industry.
- nightski 12y ago
  Would you still consider yourself an "amateur-hour web designer"? If not, why did you improve? Should we not aspire to be better?
  - lmm 12y ago
    I've learnt from various sources, but none of them were papers. There is no one-size-fits-all teaching or learning method. And rudeness and insults are going to make people less likely to learn, not more.
    - grobinson 12y ago

mietek 12y ago

Have programmers stopped representing monetary values using floating point yet?

BugBrother 12y ago
JavaScript still only has floating point, I think... So no.

fsloth 12y ago

"There is very little all programmers should be required to have in common" Especially the closer one gets to domain specific things, yes. But I think it is beneficial to all who develop software to realize from time to time how deep the rabbit hole of implementation specific complexities goes, mainly so they understand how to design their systems without stepping in any "obvious" implementation specific landmines. But in general I think your post validates the claim, since I really need to be aware of of all the traps in the floating point number representation to do my programming job properly :)

gaius 12y ago

The guys at Sony might disagree with you. How to secure a network or a mainframe was known in the 1970s, but who needs to know all that legacy systems crap, right? OO look new JS framework!!

tim333 12y ago
I think the Sony issues illustrate platz's point "There is very little all programmers should be required to have in common. The field is just that big now." In a company like Sony you need some guys that specialise in security and prevention of hacking, and some that specialise in other stuff.
- gaius 12y ago
  Umm, no, not really, it has to be baked into everything you do, even the most junior programmer working on a website has to know e.g. about SQL injection.
- imanaccount247 12y ago
  No, you can't just have "some guys that specialize in security". That's exactly what 99%+ of software is full of obvious security holes. 99%+ of developers don't know anything about or care anything about security. Security is a process not a product remember? Everyone has to be actively part of it all the time. You don't churn out buggy exploitable software and then expect some "security experts" to somehow magically make it secure.
  - tim333 12y ago
    I see your point but if 99%+ of developers are rubbish at security what are you going to do about it? a) Hope they suddenly improve, which is probably not going to happen b) Accept they have limits and encourage them to use systems and frameworks that are hard to screw up on, written people who are good at security? I note in the Sony hack the only computers that survived basically intact were Macs, not I guess because their owners understood security but because they were well designed and idiot friendly.