Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A computer science study plan to become a software engineer

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 220 posts

Re: A computer science study plan to become a software engineer

#151

Post by giantDinosaur »

hardwaregeek wrote: post #114
sxp wrote: post #5

Spoiler alert: https://medium.com/@googleyasheck/i-didnt-get-hired-here-s-w... > Last week I received a rejection email from the recruiter, and at first, I thought it was a mistake, and laughed it off. I checked in with my referral and he inquired into it and lobbied on my behalf, but in the end, it didn’t change the situation.... The thing that bothers me is that I didn’t even get a phone screen. I didn’t even talk…

It's a little frustrating how random the process is. I'd consider myself to have a decent resume for an undergraduate. I've interned at a "big N" so to speak, I've done side projects that are relevant in my field of interest and I'd consider myself to have amassed some domain specific knowledge. Yet my resume gets random rejected/ghosted from a remarkable amount of places. It's especially bad when I don't fit neatly…

You're currently still an undergrad ? That'll be why. It's obvious you'll likely leave a job when you go back to studying.

Re: A computer science study plan to become a software engineer

#152

Post by tester756 »

why people always talk about those "data structures"

and in reality they have basics in mind?

Seriously when you've been writting any software for e.g >1 >2 years then I'm pretty sure you must've been using almost all of them

who cares about details of complexity when very often just pick of the correct one (that suits the problem) gives massive boost.

Ofc you may need sometimes something trickier, but hey - there's time to find it.

Re: A computer science study plan to become a software engineer

#154

Post by tguvot »

imperio59 wrote: post #88
caymanjim wrote: post #6

This isn't a bad list of topics about data structures, algorithms, and software fundamentals, but let's not pretend that computer science has anything to do with most software engineering roles. I studied computer science, and in 30 years, I've hardly used any of it. There were a few jobs where some of the statistics and math were helpful, but in my long career, I've seen very little overlap between computer science…

What differentiates a real career professional with someone who just "learned how to code" IS the fundamentals like Data Structures, Algorithms and their underlying math fundamentals. Sure, you can become a "senior" engineer even at a big tech company if you take a more product-focused track, but even there your lack of mastery of fundamentals will eventually limit and stunt your career growth, because those around y…

As somebody who just "learned how to code", i oversee architecture of all products in saas company that just crossed 1B in sales.

At this level, nobody cares about fundamentals in 99% of companies. Also nobody cared about my lack of mastery of fundamentals during my career. If anything, people were bringing me into companies due to me having "out of box" vision and ability to see the big picture and not getting stuck in details.

Re: A computer science study plan to become a software engineer

#156

Post by twelve40 »

vbtemp wrote: post #35
caymanjim wrote: post #6

This isn't a bad list of topics about data structures, algorithms, and software fundamentals, but let's not pretend that computer science has anything to do with most software engineering roles. I studied computer science, and in 30 years, I've hardly used any of it. There were a few jobs where some of the statistics and math were helpful, but in my long career, I've seen very little overlap between computer science…

Your comment reflects a common meme that can often be summarized as: "Real World" work doesn't involve the academic nonsense you learn in school. Many of the people who say this kind of stuff never really mastered the theory, and because they never mastered it they can't really use it, and because they can't really use it they find work that doesn't strictly require it, and then conclude it's useless... It's like whe…

haha no true Scotsman strikes again! If you are not using theoretical computer science in your daily work, you are either not a true programmer because you neglected to truly absorb the theory, OR not working on true problems, just some low grade commercial bs, right?

Re: A computer science study plan to become a software engineer

#157

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mav3rick wrote: post #155
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. But what was new in Unix? What specifically?

Multitasking

Didn't Multics have that? I mean, Multics never went anywhere, but the theory wasn't new to Unix, was it?

Re: A computer science study plan to become a software engineer

#158

Post by sfinaed »

a_t48 wrote: post #31
Mattish wrote: post #18

> ...This is meant for new software engineers... Do these big companies really need so many developers that only know how to use this long list of 'fundamentals'? I've interviewed a lot of people of all ranges, ages and skews. No matter what, when it comes down to sitting down with them and asking them to write out a simple program without any technicalities, 9/10 of them fail due to clearly not spending enough time…

I think the whiteboard advice is for being comfortable in interviews.

Google expects you to write production ready code in a Google Doc for two Leetcode hard problems in 40 minutes.

Re: A computer science study plan to become a software engineer

#160

Post by stevofolife »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #157
mav3rick wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Multitasking

Didn't Multics have that? I mean, Multics never went anywhere, but the theory wasn't new to Unix, was it?

Back then, Multics was designed to run on expensive and specialized proprietary hardware where as Unix could run on a variety of cheap computers.

One can say the philosophy behind Unix was new. I'm sure that's why modular and micro kernel designs caught on.

Post reply on HN