21–30 of 170 posts
Something I heard from one of my professors once: "A programmer alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist that can program, or a programmer that can do science, is the most valuable person in the building."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's a science thing. In a scientific context "code" is understood to mean "program". For example: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22population+synthesis+... I'm not sure why this is though.
What an excellent idea: Generate new jargon that's incompatible with the jargon used from the field you suck at. Perhaps concerned scientists and editors should reject the bifurcation here and take on the lingo of the field that creates the tool they have to use and need to learn better as a first step in learning to program in a more responsible manner?
Something I heard from one of my professors once: "A programmer alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist that can program, or a programmer that can do science, is the most valuable person in the building."
Something I heard from one of my professors once: "A programmer alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist that can program, or a programmer that can do science, is the most valuable person in the building."
I don't think it's the science that adds value, I think it's the programming. The thing is, programming allows you to automate, simulate, measure and visualize complex processes. Science is all about complex processes, so if you have more powerful tools available to understand them, you will be much more valuable. Add to that, many of the physical sciences are hitting limits of physical experimentation and require simulations for further understanding.
I don't think the power of programming has truly shown itself, it should revolutionize every industry. It brings with it a different attitude towards solving problems and opens up new realms of possibilities. Social sciences are finally starting to look like real science thanks to big data and we have new knowledge industries. I'm personally most interested in how much art and education will change thanks to new powers of interactivity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's a science thing. In a scientific context "code" is understood to mean "program". For example: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22population+synthesis+... I'm not sure why this is though.
What an excellent idea: Generate new jargon that's incompatible with the jargon used from the field you suck at. Perhaps concerned scientists and editors should reject the bifurcation here and take on the lingo of the field that creates the tool they have to use and need to learn better as a first step in learning to program in a more responsible manner?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an excellent idea: Generate new jargon that's incompatible with the jargon used from the field you suck at. Perhaps concerned scientists and editors should reject the bifurcation here and take on the lingo of the field that creates the tool they have to use and need to learn better as a first step in learning to program in a more responsible manner?
It's probably not intentional, or even recent. Scientists have been using computers to help solve their problems as long as computers have existed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What an excellent idea: Generate new jargon that's incompatible with the jargon used from the field you suck at. Perhaps concerned scientists and editors should reject the bifurcation here and take on the lingo of the field that creates the tool they have to use and need to learn better as a first step in learning to program in a more responsible manner?
We probably do the same thing with terms originating in physics every day, and I'll wager they hate it.
Something I heard from one of my professors once: "A programmer alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist that can program, or a programmer that can do science, is the most valuable person in the building."
And yet there aren't many good developers doing science. Weird, huh?
Something I heard from one of my professors once: "A programmer alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist alone has a good chance of getting a good job. A scientist that can program, or a programmer that can do science, is the most valuable person in the building."
Similarly, from Zed Shaw ( http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/advice.html ) : "People who can code in the world of technology companies are a dime a dozen and get no respect. People who can code in biology, medicine, government, sociology, physics, history, and mathematics are respected and can do amazing things to advance those disciplines."