311–320 of 365 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Precision when describing (programming does not allow ambiguity) Really? Should we count how many bugs happen due to type conversion, precision errors, off by one etc?
You only reinforcing the point that programming does not allow ambiguity; thus: bugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not a reply to you personally well not just but to everyone else... A) I think you greatly underestimate what other engineering disciplines bestow not to mention require B) Really? Have you seen modern software development practices? barely functioning MVPs, vertical slices, pivoting and hacks galore.... Like personally I would wager that most programmers do not understand exactly what they are building when…
> A) I think you greatly underestimate what other engineering disciplines bestow not to mention require What makes you think I underestimate those other disciplines? I do not. The other disciplines tend to focus on tangible rather than on abstraction. Programming (if you want to actually be good at it) requires you to tackle abstractions all day long. My theory is that that ability translates (in some people!) to bei…
Formulating a clear problem statement is applicable to essentially every field and I would argue is probably the hardest thing to master and what most people fail at.
At least personally the most improvement I have experienced in formulating a problem statement had nothing to do with actual technical work but rather when I worked in professional services and had to come up with new service offerings, writing up proposals and managing stakeholders.
Formulating a problem is definitely a soft skill that I would say most purely technical programs don’t teach that well, quite often because you are given the problem statement to solve. This is also true for technical work and why some people might find it hard to progress in their careers. I’ve met plenty of brilliant and highly experienced engineers that suffer from major tunnel vision and couldn’t see the forest for the trees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just bought an M1 Macbook Pro (my first Apple laptop) because I didn’t have anymore reasons to stay with PC. For a long time I was looking at Macbooks like shiny overpriced gadgets, but with its 20 hour lifetime, great screen and performance, amazing touchpad, while Windows 10 being buggier than Windows 7, I stopped having reasons not to switch.
I always found the "overpriced" theme on Apple hardware curious: it always sounds like people are comparing with "wrong" PC hardware. Whenever I was buying a new laptop, I've only considered MacBooks because they did one thing I cared about a lot (high resolution displays in portable machines), and they were usually cheaper[1] compared to laptops I went for (lately X1 Carbons: worse performance [lower TDP CPUs], bett…
With the new Macbook Pro everything is just instant (I love the instant wake-up, the instant log-in with the fingerprint sensor...not sure how the Linux desktop compares). I remember how much effort Microsoft put in these things in the old days.
The opening paragraph of this article:
"From the onset, we have chosen to use one of Wall Street's measures of a better CEO – namely, market cap. In other words, by this measure, CEOs that create the most value are the best CEOs. Sure, there are other measures perhaps more virtuous; but market capital is well-known, generally reliable, and historically trended. So, let’s just roll with it as our measure of “better CEOs” as we have lots to discuss.
An objective review of the data leads to the conclusion: top companies are increasingly founded and managed by software engineers."
The first 100 words in this paragraph and the "objective conclusion" drawn is all you need to read to know the remaining 7000+ words are completely logically flawed. It's like making the assertion "the best restaurants in the world serve the most meals, so an objective review of the data leads to the conclusion that fast food restaurants have the best chefs."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost none of them could get a job as a software engineer at their own company, if they had to, because they would be completely unqualified. There are 10 CEO level people mentioned. Woz could certainly get a job at Apple. He's clearly brilliant and capable. Larry & Sergey could definitely get jobs at Google. They were PhD CS students at Stanford (how on Earth is that "unqualified" to you?). Zuckerberg could get a j…
> He obviously wrote a lot of Facebook's early code. Have you seen Facebook's early code? It's very much "Early 2000s PHP spaghetti written by undergrad on a caffeine bender at 3 am". Facebook succeeded because of catching lightning in a bottle at the right place/time, and sure, later engineers built it to scale, but let's not kid ourselves that it was due to Zuck's coding genius.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a better way of putting the point I was inelegantly grasping at. The neighbor kid is just an industrious kid---they happen to be nailing up drywall, but it's not that nailing up the drywall is why they end up running Berkshire Hathaway (or whatever) later. It's that they're industrious, and have various other traits that---in some other context---would result in them doing whatever else. Maybe they turn into…
not to be pedantic but drywall is screwed in not nailed. i happen to be a software engineer who has also built actual houses.
The problem with nails is that they walk out over time. Secondarily, they can become "squeaky" when used in floors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I mean they're all CEO's, they don't do software engineering as far as I know. Maybe they once did, 15-20 years ago, and maybe that was their major in uni, but I think it's a bad trend to put a label on people based on what they went to school for. What you pick in school is not your life, and real life / work experience is more educational than the education system (in my experience, but then, I'm college level…
I'm pushing 60 and university is STILL one of the most formative events, if not the most formative event, in my lifetime.
Does anyone find this methodology lazy, if not disingenuous? - Google/Alphabet's current CEO is a materials engineer [0] - Apple's current CEO is an MBA with a degree in industrial engineering [1]. Jobs, the founding CEO, was also not a software engineer. - Amazon's CEO, Bezos, was a software engineer [2], but it's widely known that he didn't do programming work for Amazon. I don't think he would consider himself a "…
I think that early Amazon employee you're referring to is Paul Davis[0] [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=PaulDavisThe1st