111–120 of 208 posts
I guess I should be mad at the institution, but that wouldn't be productive. Where do I start now to start learning what I actually need to know? It seems like there is so much I don't know.
I have no educational training in computer science, but I work as a software developer. I could not answer any of those questions, literally 0 out of 5. 1. Is O(2^n) equal to O(3^n)? Why? I have absolutely no idea what that means. But I did have to answer this question: why does the application crash? "Oh...that's because the developer that was pontificating yesterday about how heap operations behave asymptotically f…
Meanwhile, you discover a long time down the road that the algorithm you thought was fine is actually incredibly slow when scaled to large inputs because you didn't have a good understanding of runtime analysis. Or maybe, as you say, understanding more things makes you worse at coding. Who knows.
I wonder about the utility of an exam that one can ace with five minutes of googling.
I use these kind of questions in interviews. You either know the answers or you don't. There's no looking at your 'phone in an interview (at least not one with me being the interviewer).
You make a convincing case for your insularity IMHO :)
Now the didactic exercise of implementing a handful of data structures and algorithms like these from scratch has a lot of value. And knowing they exist, so you can look them up and find a library / implement if necessary, is also valuable. But knowing them 10+ years after college? The details are simply irrelevant; other things are more worth knowing off the top of your head.
I've been developing software professionally for 23 years. I have a BSc in Computer Science [1] and an MSc in a computing-related field. And I have never needed to be able to answer questions like these to do my job. I have a vague understanding of big-O notation, and equally vague knowledge of the characteristics of various algorithms like heapsort, but thats all. If I need a sort algorithm then the framework or standard library provides a selection, all written by smarter people than me.
If you are developing a relational database or Google-scale distributed platform then, yes, you probably need to know this stuff. But most developers don't. I have to understand how to capture customer requirements, fit them into systems that already exist, estimate and implement them quickly and reliably, deal with the practical details of IIS or an RDBMS, maintain code, etc. I wonder if the author needs to get out more.
[1] Badly named, I learned little real comp sci.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've only seen 1/4 of the exam so far. Sure, there's plenty of software development which doesn't involve fancy algorithms or data structures... avoiding computer architecture, operating systems, mathematics, networking, databases, and distributed systems as well is a bit harder.
I see that you're the author. Thanks for replying! > Sure, there's plenty of software development which doesn't involve fancy algorithms or data structures... avoiding computer architecture, operating systems, mathematics, networking, databases, and distributed systems as well is a bit harder. This is at odds with the statement in your article that jumped out at me: "If you can't answer the majority of the questions…
Heap operations? Bipartite graph? Implementing these is vanishingly rare. I'd wager no more than 0.1% of graduates who've seen these things ever have to maintain code that implements them, never mind writing them green field. And that comes from a guy who used to maintain a compiler. You make a convincing case for your insularity IMHO :) Now the didactic exercise of implementing a handful of data structures and algor…
Having the basics immediately to hand, without having to look them up, is needed to move on to the next level. Knowing how to recognize a bipartite graph means that when there's one around you're likely to think - hmm, I wonder if that's bipartite? recognizing the problem to be solved sometimes requires that you have a deep and fundamental understanding of the types of solutions that exist.
People seem constantly to say this - I can look it up on Google, why do I need to know this? I constantly solve problems my colleagues can't (and vice versa) because I have a deep familiarity with a range of techniques that they can look up any time they want, but don't recognize "in the wild."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whilst I agree with you on being self-taught and knowing those answers I will say that I finally went and got an MSc in Computer Science after 12 years working professionally as a developer and being self-taught. Part of the reason was to find out what I didn't know. What I didn't know was basically some parts of set theory and quite a chunk of automata theory. I did find cperciva's questions to be trivial, but I wou…
I agree, you'll only know the answer if you've taken the time to learn about the specific concepts being tested. I suppose what I'm surprised about is that a large number of developers haven't taken the time to learn (or have since forgotten) the theory around these particular concepts.
I wanted to ask this question regarding big O notation. When we say f(n) = O(g(n)) all we mean to say is that f(n) <= c(g(n)) with other constraints. My question is, why do we have an equal to sign, why is f(n) equal to O(g(n)).. they could have made up a new symbol to establish such a relationship... The reason why I think so is because I see equal to as a transitive relationship.. So, if a = b and c = b, then a = c…