5 ms·

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 sc

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
      Is that not because, at the time, you were much more of a beginner than you are now? I've been studying Computer Science for the last four years (BSc and now MSc) but was coding for maybe three years before that. Back then I was learning JavaScript and PHP from w3schools, PHP.net and some blogs. I built a framework from reading the source code for CodeIgniter. I learn't a lot about object orientated design, or the lack thereof, in that project. By the time I finished 2nd year of Comp Sci I had a pretty good understanding of algorithms, design patterns, some theory (Petri-nets, state machines, etc..), databases, etc. Going into my MSc, there is quite a lot that you can't learn without reading papers. For example, chances are you are going to have no idea how to solve the consensus problem in a distributed system without reading Paxos.
      - lmm 12y ago
        I tried to read the Paxos paper and gave up. The Raft paper I probably could've understood, but I found it easier to understand by looking at an implementation and a less formal description of it. I don't think it's about what you know (plenty of papers have few prerequisites and are conceptually quite simple).
    - kuni-toko-tachi 12y ago
      I've been writing software for 20/years, and had I learned the concepts brought forth in these papers years ago, I would have been much better. Hacking is not writing software.
jnbiche 12y ago
"not "amateur-hour web designers" Perhaps you're confused. Most people who refer to themselves as "web designers" aren't meant to be or and aren't trying to be computer scientists or engineers. Many of them have a graphics design education, or taken inspiration from that tradition. Some of the more technically-minded of them can do basic coding, but most of them stop at HTML and CSS. But they're better than I am at UI/UX, and visual design, because that's what they do. They're not meant to be computer scientists. If you mean web-application developers, however, I'd urge you to take a look at some of the stuff that is being done on the front-end these days. (not to mention the fact that this blog post was written by a Javascript expert) Yes, there are some people who have drifted into their jobs and are little more than cargo cultists, although some of the more talented and curious of them do make the upgrade to serious professionals. But by far, most of the people I've worked with recently on front-end jobs have had a rigorous computer science education, with an excellent knowledge of data structures, algorithms, software engineering, and computer architecture. The fact that they're working on the front-end, in Javascript, is incidental. In their spare time, and if they're lucky, on some in-house stuff, they might prefer working in Haskell, or maybe Clojure. But much like C in past decades, the web is ubiquitous, and any serious developer of this era must know how to work in it. We don't all have the privilege of getting paid to write Scheme. But I do share your opinion that there are certain foundational concepts and knowledge that all professional programmers should have in common, including some of the papers referenced.
- momo-reina 12y ago
  Perhaps the comment came out wrong, let me try to be a little clearer. I'm not trying to create separate categories between front-end, back-end, desktop, CLI, and systems engineers. The distinction I am trying to make though is that yes, while Computing has become a vast field, there simply are some basic fundamental skills that are absolutely required if we want to go beyond our current level of achievement. These are things that you have mentioned: deep knowledge of algorithms, data structures, software engineering, computer architecture, etc. This is absolutely the MINIMUM requirement Without understanding these things, we will stay at this present level of software engineering forever. Sure we will have mastered the tools, and the current programming-paradigms that these tools teach us, but we will not be able to advance. Whether one programs in JavaScript, Forth, Common Lisp, or even BASIC isn't the issue. The point that Fogus's post is trying to get across, or at least what I have taken away from it, is that most "serious" programmers are incredibly lacking in what is considered basic foundational knowledge. What field one specializes in is irrelevant, there is just some stuff that everyone has to understand, not necessarily in the way that a specialist in the field does, but at least have more than passing, cursory knowledge of it.

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
    Is that not because, at the time, you were much more of a beginner than you are now? I've been studying Computer Science for the last four years (BSc and now MSc) but was coding for maybe three years before that. Back then I was learning JavaScript and PHP from w3schools, PHP.net and some blogs. I built a framework from reading the source code for CodeIgniter. I learn't a lot about object orientated design, or the lack thereof, in that project. By the time I finished 2nd year of Comp Sci I had a pretty good understanding of algorithms, design patterns, some theory (Petri-nets, state machines, etc..), databases, etc. Going into my MSc, there is quite a lot that you can't learn without reading papers. For example, chances are you are going to have no idea how to solve the consensus problem in a distributed system without reading Paxos.
    - lmm 12y ago
      I tried to read the Paxos paper and gave up. The Raft paper I probably could've understood, but I found it easier to understand by looking at an implementation and a less formal description of it. I don't think it's about what you know (plenty of papers have few prerequisites and are conceptually quite simple).
  - kuni-toko-tachi 12y ago
    I've been writing software for 20/years, and had I learned the concepts brought forth in these papers years ago, I would have been much better. Hacking is not writing software.

jnbiche 12y ago

"not "amateur-hour web designers" Perhaps you're confused. Most people who refer to themselves as "web designers" aren't meant to be or and aren't trying to be computer scientists or engineers. Many of them have a graphics design education, or taken inspiration from that tradition. Some of the more technically-minded of them can do basic coding, but most of them stop at HTML and CSS. But they're better than I am at UI/UX, and visual design, because that's what they do. They're not meant to be computer scientists. If you mean web-application developers, however, I'd urge you to take a look at some of the stuff that is being done on the front-end these days. (not to mention the fact that this blog post was written by a Javascript expert) Yes, there are some people who have drifted into their jobs and are little more than cargo cultists, although some of the more talented and curious of them do make the upgrade to serious professionals. But by far, most of the people I've worked with recently on front-end jobs have had a rigorous computer science education, with an excellent knowledge of data structures, algorithms, software engineering, and computer architecture. The fact that they're working on the front-end, in Javascript, is incidental. In their spare time, and if they're lucky, on some in-house stuff, they might prefer working in Haskell, or maybe Clojure. But much like C in past decades, the web is ubiquitous, and any serious developer of this era must know how to work in it. We don't all have the privilege of getting paid to write Scheme. But I do share your opinion that there are certain foundational concepts and knowledge that all professional programmers should have in common, including some of the papers referenced.

momo-reina 12y ago
Perhaps the comment came out wrong, let me try to be a little clearer. I'm not trying to create separate categories between front-end, back-end, desktop, CLI, and systems engineers. The distinction I am trying to make though is that yes, while Computing has become a vast field, there simply are some basic fundamental skills that are absolutely required if we want to go beyond our current level of achievement. These are things that you have mentioned: deep knowledge of algorithms, data structures, software engineering, computer architecture, etc. This is absolutely the MINIMUM requirement Without understanding these things, we will stay at this present level of software engineering forever. Sure we will have mastered the tools, and the current programming-paradigms that these tools teach us, but we will not be able to advance. Whether one programs in JavaScript, Forth, Common Lisp, or even BASIC isn't the issue. The point that Fogus's post is trying to get across, or at least what I have taken away from it, is that most "serious" programmers are incredibly lacking in what is considered basic foundational knowledge. What field one specializes in is irrelevant, there is just some stuff that everyone has to understand, not necessarily in the way that a specialist in the field does, but at least have more than passing, cursory knowledge of it.