I mostly disagree. Software, like electronic engineering, is about abstraction, but it differs in a critical way: It's self-modifiable. Kids can think they're making computer games using little apps, but what they're doing is more akin to making a map for Starcraft than it is to actually making a game. If anything I'd argue that getting a CS degree or similar (math, engineering, philosophy) will arm your mind with th…
Computer science as a lost art (2015)
111–120 of 146 posts
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#112So, for the dogshed builders among us, what might be the recommended pathway to learn some architecture--beyond the obvious academic options? I'm sure this has been covered to death on HN already, but if anyone has a link bookmarked and feels like sharing?
Read carefully "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs" (e.g. online for free), preferably do exercises. You'll get a solid start.
"I'd like to welcome you to this course on Computer Science. Actually that's a terrible way to start. Computer science is a terrible name for this business. First of all, it's not a science. It might be engineering or it might be art. We'll actually see that computer so-called science actually has a lot in common with magic. We will see that in this course. So it's not a science. It's also not really very much about computers. And it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators. And biology is not really about microscopes and petri dishes. And it's not about computers in the same sense that geometry is not really about using a surveying instruments."
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY [1]: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-compu...
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#113So, for the dogshed builders among us, what might be the recommended pathway to learn some architecture--beyond the obvious academic options? I'm sure this has been covered to death on HN already, but if anyone has a link bookmarked and feels like sharing?
Some classes are better than others, but it’s extremely valuable to have a program that you’re following with deadlines and measures. If you have a desire to learn the stuff, you’ll get a lot out of it.
When I get busy personally or at work, I kinda phone it in and just do enough to make grades, but when I have the latitude to dive deep I’m learning a ton.
It’s also very affordable, fitting within most workplace education allowances, if you have one.
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#114For my part, I have found the underlying theory to be helpful in ways I couldn't have comprehended while at school. Understanding binary made understanding octets in IP addresses and subnet masking much easier. Taking a class that involved programming sorting algorithms by hand in C++ was very beneficial, even though I have no need to do this in my day to day work. Learning about logic gates has even been helpful. Basically, I'm better equipped to have a fundamental understanding of how software and hardware works, even if it's a very basic understanding. What I lacked coming out of school, though, was having a clear road map of how to just build something in a modern stack on day one at a job.
My compatriot is in the opposite boat. He came out of boot camp with a clear understanding of how to build web applications using Angular. He could hit the ground running, and did from day one. However, he lacks the underlying theory that helps to understand how things work. Does he need these things to do his job? No, but I do believe it makes for a more well-rounded developer to have this knowledge. Fortunately, he's got a great attitude and aptitude, so he's been picking these things up as he goes.
I'd rather see something more in the middle, where one can get the theory coupled with the real-world programming skills. Maybe my CS program is to blame, and others exist that do a better job of this. Looking back, my senior "full-stack" project was very limited. I would have benefited from a little more meat to the project, and also having some more of the ancillary things taught, such as anything to do with networking in a more practical rather than academic way.
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#115He asserts that the number of devs is doubling every 5 years which means that half the developers have Anyway he's a great speaker and this is one of my favorites.
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
With the exception of Bezos, everyone on your list dropped out of their degree before finishing it - although to be fair to Brin, he already had a degree from Maryland before dropping out of his PhD.
Dropping out doesn't mean they didn't already get a lot of benefit from their schooling. Just that they realized they didn't need the piece of paper and could do the rest on their own. But especially the fundamentals is where I think most of the value of a uni degree is.
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
It should be a requirement to have each student complete a modern full stack. Some schools have pitiful results for what they say is a degree.
It’s often argued here that the purpose of a CS degree is “not to get you a job” but to “become a better citizen of the world” and if you just wanted to learn something to get a job “you should go to a trade school”.
I can't recall ever hearing that argument advanced for CS degrees on HN (and I read a _lot_ of HN postings). Perhaps you're thinking of liberal arts degrees?
The usual rationale for CS degrees is that one learns the underlying theory behind the systems and tech stacks that they use, making them a more capable developer.
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#118I've worked for years as a self-taught developer before going back to get my CS degree, I've taught at a bootcamp, and I've hired bootcamp graduates. Bootcamps can be valuable, but they are in no way comparable to a 4 year degree from a decent CS program. The top performing bootcamps are either functioning as an extended job interview that you have to pay for, or they are very good at selecting experienced students w…
I'm a self-taught web dev, and I want to further my CS education but can't go back to school for various reasons. I've seen various syllabi eg teachyourselfcs.com and though they seem legit (and I've dabbled is some courses) I don't quite see the application/direct benefit professionally. Let me phrase in another way; when I got started it was easy to see why I needed to learn front-end and back-end to make a web app…
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#119Ugh. I think what people writing articles like this tend to miss, is that it's much easier to be super deep in a field when the field is limited and low-entry but you're already in it. Because there's not really as much going on and there's not much else to do but learn C or some text editor on a super deep level or what not. What else are you going to do? Look at the stuff "deep" people are generally into, it mostly…
> What else are you going to do? Look at the stuff "deep" people are generally into, it mostly revolves around POSIX some way or another. And databases, but nobody wants to talk about that. Self-driving cars (controls, perception, planning, safety, sensor design, localization, mapping, integration, security, etc.), human-competitive NLP/image classification, advanced robotics (repeat list from cars here but for thing…
Self-driving cars are new. You've missed my point. The OP is from an older age. There wasn't a lot back then, so for choosing what to focus in, weren't a lot of choices.
Funny, you mention graphics, what do graphics usually involve? C, C++. Back to POSIX. Operating systems? Same. Robotics? C. Basically, if you picked C, you're good.
On the other hand, how often do you hear about a Java expert? Someone who knows the intricacies of the GC? All about the JVM? Not that often. They exist. But it's not hip. They chose "poorly".
These days, there is a lot more choice, so what are you going to pick? On what is that choice based? What do you do if you picked the wrong thing? This is problem is very modern and didn't exist to such a degree before.
Re: Computer science as a lost art (2015)
#120Ugh. I think what people writing articles like this tend to miss, is that it's much easier to be super deep in a field when the field is limited and low-entry but you're already in it. Because there's not really as much going on and there's not much else to do but learn C or some text editor on a super deep level or what not. What else are you going to do? Look at the stuff "deep" people are generally into, it mostly…
> This just seems to be heavily misguided elitism. Not really. There is a bit too much meet you at the bottom communism in the modern ethos of computer science. When you can have measured difficulty and time to skill in a field isn't it a little odd that we don't have a lot more measured elitism in computer science? The reality is the hardest most complex stuff is literally solved and produced by an elite few. All of…
The elite few don't really want anyone joining them, so nobody does. Look at the state of academia and look at lack of training in jobs. Nobody wants anyone to be elite, so people don't bother, there's no benefit in it. Your problem is that you think you're important, that you think the most useful contribution from a person is what they do personally, but all that does is just advance, you, personally.
The thing is, the elite are often much more worried about being elite than about what they're actually doing. Once you see that, you know the incentive is corrupt. It's a status thing for them. And how dare anyone challenge their status. That's really all this is. It's hardly about the advancement of technology, because if it was, those people would be out there teaching, or trying to address the informational overload, and not looking smug. It's elitist because it's utterly disregarding most of human experience and presenting yours as superior, and your entire argument will ultimately derive from that view and pretty much everything you say after that could be really anything as long as it supports your idea that you're superior. That's why elitism is bad, it's destructive to conception of reality.
I know plenty of people who don't look at things as magic but who also don't consider themselves as some "wizards". Maybe you should try getting off your high horse and talking to people some and figuring out what it is that they are doing all day and you'll understand how silly everything you're saying here is. But as with everything else, it's easier to sit on top than to try to understand.
Snobbery is all this is, and likely unearned, can't say the association between perceiving yourself as elite and actually being so is very good at all.