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

Writes large correct programs (2008)

johndcook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#71

Post by bee_rider »

RealityVoid wrote: post #65
intelVISA wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those pseudo-jobs are a necessary evil in lieu of some sort of UBI imo. Plus they're useful for sabotaging your competitors' TTM.

I believe we're not at the productivity level that UBI requires, and those "pseudo-jobs" are a waste that could be redirected to some more constructive endeavor. Even if you oppose consumerism and building stuff or whatnot, that wasted effort could be directed towards making products more sustainable or making better recycling supply chains or building nuclear power plants or whatnot.

If we’re productive enough to pay them to construct roadblocks, surely we’re productive enough to pay them to do nothing.

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#72

Post by coliveira »

Thorrez wrote: post #18
herodotus wrote: post #15

When I was a prof (many years ago), I was working on a database for a political campaign. The code was a mess. I asked a couple of my colleagues (successful comp. sci. profs) to help out. It became clear very quickly that there are two kinds of comp. sci. profs: those who can program and those who cannot.

One of my computer science professors when his laptop wasn't connecting to the projector: "I hate computers."

Why do you think people become CS professors? One of the reasons is that they don't like working in the industry and maybe don't even know how to program.

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#73

Post by [deleted] »

RealityVoid wrote: post #65
intelVISA wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those pseudo-jobs are a necessary evil in lieu of some sort of UBI imo. Plus they're useful for sabotaging your competitors' TTM.

I believe we're not at the productivity level that UBI requires, and those "pseudo-jobs" are a waste that could be redirected to some more constructive endeavor. Even if you oppose consumerism and building stuff or whatnot, that wasted effort could be directed towards making products more sustainable or making better recycling supply chains or building nuclear power plants or whatnot.

[deleted]

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#74

Post by Nevermark »

bee_rider wrote: post #71
RealityVoid wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe we're not at the productivity level that UBI requires, and those "pseudo-jobs" are a waste that could be redirected to some more constructive endeavor. Even if you oppose consumerism and building stuff or whatnot, that wasted effort could be directed towards making products more sustainable or making better recycling supply chains or building nuclear power plants or whatnot.

If we’re productive enough to pay them to construct roadblocks, surely we’re productive enough to pay them to do nothing.

I do believe that a tiny uncomfortable UBI would increase the overall economy, and benefit individual businesses by pre-weeding out a lot of posers.

If someone can get by on $500/month, and not feel the need to make the effort to live better, it would be a service to all to give that to them.

And on the other hand, a small fallback that makes it easier for individuals going through a rough spot to come back also helps the overall economy and individual businesses.

Finally, if we had a basic program like this started, the number could go up with overall economic productivity. Slow at first, but as the AI/machine economy takes off, especially with practical accessibility to off planet resources, a tiny fraction of the economic output would make everyone rich by today's standards, just at the time when human labor's economic value heads to zero.

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#75

Post by andrewflnr »

brap wrote: post #8

One thing that’s missing: programs are mutable. A good programmer writes programs that are easy to maintain and extend.

Arguably, that's implicit in "large". A large program has most likely been extended several times, through its various stages of growth (the alternative being that it was written in a single pass, unlikely). This is tied to the author's point about managing complexity: complexity is the main enemy of maintainability.

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#76

Post by harimau777 »

bckr wrote: post #27
harimau777 wrote: post #25

It seems to me that in other areas of tech, companies generally hire electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, etc. On the other hand, software companies feel that they don't need to hire computer scientists. Then periodically there is a discussion on Hacker News that boils down to "all of the other engineering disciplines can make reliable predictions and deadlines; why can't software?" or "why is…

Is your working definition of a computer scientist similar to a civil or electrical engineer? To me, a computer scientist is someone who studies computation. They probably have the skills to figure out the run times of algorithms, and probably develop algorithms for solving arbitrary problems. A software engineer is what I would call someone who can estimate and deliver a large software application fit for purpose.

Theoretically, I think that the ideal situation would be for a Computer Scientist to be someone who performs fundamental research in computation while a Software Engineer (I think that something like Computer Engineer would be a better term) applies computation research. Analogous to the relationship between a Physicist and an Electrical Engineer.

However, as the terms are currently used, I see Computer Scientist as analogous to Electrical Engineer. On the other hand, it seems to me that Software Engineer is used to suggest that developers don't need to know the theory behind computation.

Therefore, I currently think that the way "Software Engineer" is used respresents a lot of what's wrong with current software development.

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#77

Post by harimau777 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #34
harimau777 wrote: post #25

It seems to me that in other areas of tech, companies generally hire electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, etc. On the other hand, software companies feel that they don't need to hire computer scientists. Then periodically there is a discussion on Hacker News that boils down to "all of the other engineering disciplines can make reliable predictions and deadlines; why can't software?" or "why is…

In other areas of tech, companies hire electrical, mechanical, and civil engineers, and not, say, physicists. Software engineers are analogous to the other engineers. Computer scientists are analogous to the physicists. Or take chemicals. When the question is "how are the outer-shell electrons distributed", you hire a chemist. When the question is "how do we make the stuff in multi-ton quantities without blowing up d…

The difference as I see it is that electrical engineers are expected to have a deep knowledge of advanced mathematics, EM fields, semiconductors, control theory, electronics, etc. However, software engineers are not expected to have a deep knowledge of algorithms, category theory, formal languages, etc.

Effectively, companies treat Software Engineers like Electricians not like Electrical Engineers.

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#78

Post by aleph_minus_one »

bee_rider wrote: post #70
intelVISA wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those pseudo-jobs are a necessary evil in lieu of some sort of UBI imo. Plus they're useful for sabotaging your competitors' TTM.

I think this is true. At the time I’m writing this comment, yours is unfortunately getting downvoted, and I wonder if it is a wording issue or something. There definitely exist some people who do these sort of jobs in a way provides a negative/roadblock only type of contribution. This isn’t to say nobody produced a positive contribution in these jobs. And it isn’t to say these people who produce negative value are, l…

> But, there are definitely some folks who we’d be better off paying to not do anything.

An even better idea: simply don't hire such people.

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#79

Post by BobbyTables2 »

default-kramer wrote: post #44
intelVISA wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you propose those "BS artists" feed their families in an alternate reality tech industry where only the roles that add value are deemed worthy of food and shelter coupons?

A good first step would be let them keep their jobs, but strip them of any authority. This already happens at some companies - the architects provide guidance which dev teams are not required to follow. I think it's absolutely insane that we live in a world where many people with an "architect" title don't write code, and sometimes have never written code in their life! That would be like a world full of chess coache…

It’s funny, the most effective “architects” only have “developer” in their title.

The ones with “architect” in the title move on to the next project as soon as the previous is started…

Re: Writes large correct programs (2008)

#80

Post by ahartmetz »

harimau777 wrote: post #25

It seems to me that in other areas of tech, companies generally hire electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers, etc. On the other hand, software companies feel that they don't need to hire computer scientists. Then periodically there is a discussion on Hacker News that boils down to "all of the other engineering disciplines can make reliable predictions and deadlines; why can't software?" or "why is…

They are related to the discipline being quite new, I think.I have seen little correlation between studying computer science and being able to program well. That might also have something to do with the generally atrocious quality of CS teaching in Germany. Professors try so hard to avoid "dirty practice" in favor of doing quasi-mathematics that they ignore interesting and fruitful fields because (get this!) not only does practice follow theory, but vice versa as well, maybe even more so.
Post reply on HN