111–120 of 135 posts
i was amused by "calculus (the real kind)" to distinguish it from usages like "lambda calculus". don't think i've ever seen that one before, though it parallels usages like "a real doctor (not a phd)" and "anything with a science in its name isn't".
The irony is that the best way to find out if mathematics is actually useless to either programming or real world problem solving is to know a lot of it.Just staring at it from a safe window and then making catholic pronouncements does not help.
My CS degree was quite theoretical (completed in 1999) so it wasn't just being taught the language of the day (we did x86 assembly, Modula-2, Prolog, Lisp, C++ and Occam).
The Mathematics degree has definitely been useful for programming; specifically set theory, matrix manipulation and linear algebra, number theory, and graphs/networks/design, but a lot of it is stuff I'm unlikely to use for usual programming areas. Number theory (and implications within assymetric encryption) is where I'll probably look to continue learning (as part of a Masters degree) if I find the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There aren't enough humans that can do math, and there are more openings for jobs than intellectuals. Programming is not necessarily a job for intellectuals, any more than painting or automotive repair is reserved for intellectuals. Have you heard of the balmer peak? This stuff we call code ain't that hard. I don't like your complexity argument. If you are a gear in a watch you do not deal with complexity. You are we…
The Ballmer Peak was a fictional concept in an XKCD cartoon[0]. Hardly something to use as evidence in an argument. But even if it were scientifically accurate, alcohol doesn't make you dumber (at least not at first) - it makes you less inhibited and slower-thinking, two traits that may actually be desirable in problem-solving. [0] http://xkcd.com/323/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Then why do we so consistently fuck it up horribly? This is the crux of it. Coding these days "ain't that hard" because the current generation of programmers sneer at formal methods. They believe providing even semi-rigorous proofs that their code works is not worth their effort. The result? Testing code with arbitrary input is the best practice; even semi-rigorous proofs are a "luxury". Would your high school geom…
I'd say blaming programmers is a bit wrong, blame the business; most businesses don't pay programmers to write good code, they pay for fast code that generally works. They don't want to pay too much because how hard can it be to put database data onto the screen. Most programming simply doesn't require math beyond elementary arithmetic. You think most programmers have time for formal proofs?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Ballmer Peak was a fictional concept in an XKCD cartoon[0]. Hardly something to use as evidence in an argument. But even if it were scientifically accurate, alcohol doesn't make you dumber (at least not at first) - it makes you less inhibited and slower-thinking, two traits that may actually be desirable in problem-solving. [0] http://xkcd.com/323/
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57413201-10391704/can...
QED!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd say blaming programmers is a bit wrong, blame the business; most businesses don't pay programmers to write good code, they pay for fast code that generally works. They don't want to pay too much because how hard can it be to put database data onto the screen. Most programming simply doesn't require math beyond elementary arithmetic. You think most programmers have time for formal proofs?
Every business wants cheap and fast. And responsible professionals insist on doing things correctly anyways. You don't blame the business when someone builds a bridge that collapses when it gets windy, you blame the person who designed it wrong. Same thing with code, nobody is forcing us to do it wrong, and doing it right doesn't take significantly longer. Programmers just need to be educated and learn how to write c…
There is more than one "correct". Cheap fast prototypes can and generally should skimp on "correct" scaling things because that extra work isn't necessary unless the idea takes off, otherwise you're saving a ton of labor skipping things that a final product might need but a failed idea won't.
> You don't blame the business when someone builds a bridge that collapses
Be serious; lives aren't generally on the line for most business apps and that kind of engineering is time consuming and expensive and totally unnecessary most of the time for application developers.
> do it wrong, and doing it right doesn't take significantly longer
I completely disagree.
>Programmers just need to be educated and learn how to write code.
Sounds like you need to spend some time running a business and paying for those programmers; you'll change your mind fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This description defines abstract algebra and some topology well, but I am an applied mathematician and for me mathematics is about number crunching and stability of this number crunching. Without numbers or numerical structures like polynomials and matrices you'll only have set theory, some parts of algebra and some mathematical logic. Philosophers of mathematics spent the 20th century what mathematics is all about…
Philosophers of mathematics spent the 20th century what mathematics is all about and they did not settled on any potential definition. Ok, I have to disagree with you here. What Godel established is that there's no complete axiom system. Every mathematical formalism will have statements P for which neither P nor ~P can be proven. This was not an unexpected result. What makes Godel's Incompleteness Theorem awesome is…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every business wants cheap and fast. And responsible professionals insist on doing things correctly anyways. You don't blame the business when someone builds a bridge that collapses when it gets windy, you blame the person who designed it wrong. Same thing with code, nobody is forcing us to do it wrong, and doing it right doesn't take significantly longer. Programmers just need to be educated and learn how to write c…
> And responsible professionals insist on doing things correctly anyways. There is more than one "correct". Cheap fast prototypes can and generally should skimp on "correct" scaling things because that extra work isn't necessary unless the idea takes off, otherwise you're saving a ton of labor skipping things that a final product might need but a failed idea won't. > You don't blame the business when someone builds a…
Prototypes don't go into production, so it is moot. No, first versions should not skimp on correctness. It saves virtually no time at all. For example, I've done absolutely nothing special to make our web apps scalable, we just use scalable tech to build it in the first place instead of garbage.
>Be serious; lives aren't generally on the line
How is that relevant?
>I completely disagree.
Maybe you should try it sometime then.
>Sounds like you need to spend some time running a business and paying for those programmers
Almost 6 years so far, how much more time do I need to spend before reality will suddenly flip on its head and doing things wrong will suddenly become awesome?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And responsible professionals insist on doing things correctly anyways. There is more than one "correct". Cheap fast prototypes can and generally should skimp on "correct" scaling things because that extra work isn't necessary unless the idea takes off, otherwise you're saving a ton of labor skipping things that a final product might need but a failed idea won't. > You don't blame the business when someone builds a…
>Cheap fast prototypes can and generally should skimp on "correct" scaling things Prototypes don't go into production, so it is moot. No, first versions should not skimp on correctness. It saves virtually no time at all. For example, I've done absolutely nothing special to make our web apps scalable, we just use scalable tech to build it in the first place instead of garbage. >Be serious; lives aren't generally on th…
Yes they do.
> No, first versions should not skimp on correctness.
Yes they should.
> It saves virtually no time at all.
It saves plenty of time.
> we just use scalable tech to build it in the first place instead of garbage.
We aren't talking about tech, but technique. There are plenty of times you can do things in a less than optimal fashion that is much quicker to code than the optimal version which isn't worth doing unless the idea gets some traction.
So it seems we just fundamentally disagree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Cheap fast prototypes can and generally should skimp on "correct" scaling things Prototypes don't go into production, so it is moot. No, first versions should not skimp on correctness. It saves virtually no time at all. For example, I've done absolutely nothing special to make our web apps scalable, we just use scalable tech to build it in the first place instead of garbage. >Be serious; lives aren't generally on th…
> Prototypes don't go into production, so it is moot. Yes they do. > No, first versions should not skimp on correctness. Yes they should. > It saves virtually no time at all. It saves plenty of time. > we just use scalable tech to build it in the first place instead of garbage. We aren't talking about tech, but technique. There are plenty of times you can do things in a less than optimal fashion that is much quicker…