I haven't seen these tricks come into play when solving real problems at ALL. Not saying you should not know the language, but better to have problem-solving skills than rot the standard. The bit about leaving a new line after main tells me she really has memorized the standard.
Deep C and C++ (2011)
81–90 of 243 posts
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's all relative. I would consider a 10 somebody who could write the C++ compiler without guidance for example. And probably give myself a 4 as a result.
Would you only consider someone's knowledge of Python a 10 if they could write a Python interpreter without guidance?
I will give the creators of PonyORM a 10 as well.
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/16115713/how-pony-orm-doe...
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#83The girl spewing some bullshit may lead to an interview ended early. Clearly bright, but not as bright as she think she actually is... Come back in a few years with a bit more humility... Hard to decide if the other guy is bad or inexperienced without a resume...
"If you compile in debug mode the runtime might try to be helpful and memset your stack memory to 0"
This is a retarded explanation (pages are set to 0 when they are recycled by the OS so you don't end up having data from dead processes mapped in your memory, with all the security implications). Also, actually randomizing memory in a debug context would actually be more helpful to trigger those initialization bugs...
People that think they know everything are a lot more dangerous than people actually aware of their limitation and safely working within them.
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In an interview, I would much rather hear a person say something about a statically declared variable with no initialization being poor code to leave behind for the next person than some arcana about the standard. Why are you forcing those two choices? One could be well-versed with the arcana AS WELL AS point out that bit about statically declared variable .. The problem IMO is most programmers cargo-cult/copy-paste…
> You'll find them toiling away in anonymity, working in research labs, working on compiler optimizers or operating systems or some other domain with challenging technical problems. Sadly you are required to move for such jobs, which is not always an option.
And best of all is such things are not fashionable. Take a round of HN or any other place where programmers hang around. Take a note of how many articles, blogs posts, essays, tiny libraries, frameworks etc are written for languages like Javascript, or Python, or Ruby, or Java.
Compare this with C. There is a degree of serious technical focus that languages like these demand for big projects. Embedded systems, Operating systems, Databases, compilers etc. A big part of software world uses these languages on a daily basis. But there is no where the kind of hipster crowd, these languages have the web frameworks or languages have.
Even if you spend some time searching for resources on the net, there are few that teach deep C skills. There might be one or two books out there which haven't been updated in 2 decades.
By and large, these are unfashionable fields to work in. The barrier to entry is really high, Success comes only with seriousness and application of well focused effort, mistakes are expensive and they warrant serious RTFM'ing the hard way- to write to some real serious code.
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#85People complain loudly about gotchas in JS, but when you look at what C++ programmers have to contend with...
Conversely, JS programmers I complain about JS gotchas about contend that "once you learn all those horrible gotchas, it's a great language".
Even C++ programmers, at least the ones that had good fortune to have time away from C++, agree that C++ gotchas are unforgivable.
But in general, C++ and JS communities have the biggest cases of Stockholm Syndrome I've seen.
Disclaimer: I'm a recovering C++ programmer.
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. Deeper you go, better you are. Better you are, better products you make. Just Simple mathematics.
Totally disagree with this. I've worked with plenty of fantastic programmers who are basically worthless without the guidance of a good lead/producer/designer. Nonobligatory image to support statement: http://codinghorror.typepad.com/.a/6a0120a85dcdae970b0128776...
A programmer is not a designer. Both are completely different fields. What you are saying is that a shark(programmer) cannot fly like an eagle(designer). But it sure can swim. And vice-a-verse.
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#87I'm not so jaded as to think that deep language understanding isn't a useful or good thing, and I'd like to think I have some myself. However, deep language understanding is not what separates the great engineers from the good ones. In an interview, I would much rather hear a person say something about a statically declared variable with no initialization being poor code to leave behind for the next person than some…
>In an interview, I would much rather hear a person say something about a statically declared variable with no initialization being poor code to leave behind for the next person than some arcana about the standard. Why are you forcing those two choices? One could be well-versed with the arcana AS WELL AS point out that bit about statically declared variable .. The problem IMO is most programmers cargo-cult/copy-paste…
> Great mathematicians can understand the theory and just apply it to whatever problem they come across.
As someone who's both a mathematician and a programmer, I think that analogy glosses over an important difference, which is also relevant to why many people refuse to memorize certain things.
Good mathematical theories are internally consistent in a very strong sense. When you're learning them, you feel like you're learning something eternal that could not possibly turn out any other way. If you forget half of calculus, you can reconstruct it from the other half, and the reconstruction will be unique.
The details of programming languages, like C and especially C++, are not like that. For many mathematicians who would otherwise make excellent programmers, the details of C will feel like something not worth memorizing, because they don't make sense - they are not an inevitable, provably unique solution to any problem.
To a mathematically inclined mind, programming concepts form a hierarchy depending on how "inevitable" and worth memorizing they are. Concepts like computability, lambda calculus or big-O complexity are near the top, syntaxes of specific languages are lower down, and API details are at the bottom. That also reflects the rates of change: math doesn't change, languages change every decade, and APIs change every year.
If I want to hire a programmer for the long term, as opposed to getting quick help on my current project, I will be mostly asking them about concepts from the top of the hierarchy, not what static means in C. Of course some people will disagree with me and demand detailed knowledge about static or templates or whatnot, while dismissing mathematical questions as "puzzles". Maybe that's also a valid style of programming, I'm not sure...
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arguably if people have such strong understanding of things they will be better programmers too. I would prefer the person who knew what they were doing, because they also know _why_ weird things are weird, and have a better real understanding of what to do and not do. A person who just knows it's "bad code"--but not why--is almost certainly going to leave other bad code from lack of understanding. To pull an example…
However, I'd be concerned that the person with strong understanding of things will simply leave uninitialized static variables lying around in the code simply because they _knew_ it was always initialized to 0. It might work if your entire coding team has that innate understanding, but that is unlikely. Sometimes I think that having deep and expert understanding of a language may cause you to create code that other t…
I disagree that static initialization is deep understanding nor is it innate.
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
>In an interview, I would much rather hear a person say something about a statically declared variable with no initialization being poor code to leave behind for the next person than some arcana about the standard. Why are you forcing those two choices? One could be well-versed with the arcana AS WELL AS point out that bit about statically declared variable .. The problem IMO is most programmers cargo-cult/copy-paste…
> Great mathematicians can understand the theory and just apply it to whatever problem they come across. As someone who's both a mathematician and a programmer, I think that analogy glosses over an important difference, which is also relevant to why many people refuse to memorize certain things. Good mathematical theories are internally consistent in a very strong sense. When you're learning them, you feel like you'r…
A thousand times this. Mathematicians are spoilt by maths riches of eternal problems. CS ought to be too, but so many are instead fascinated by the 10 year, 2 year, 1 week problems around the fashion of a programming tool.
No wonder everyone is always talking about the rapid pace of learning in high technology.
Re: Deep C and C++ (2011)
#90This was good, but… Hermione (I'm sure that's her) rates her C++ knowledge at 4-5, and Stroustrup himself at 7!? Bullshit. Either they are poorly calibrated, or they are displaying false modesty. Sure, they probably still have plenty to learn about C++, but come on, Hermione is already at the top 97% in terms of language lawyering. Wanting to be stronger is good. Not realizing you're already quite strong is not so go…
Yeah, I'd say 10 years ago I though I rated around 8
After some time, 7, then 5
But then I got back to 6.
The more you know, the less you know!