Computer Science from the Bottom Up (2016)

Post by cmroanirgo » Sun, Dec 29, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

gedy wrote: post #69

henrikschroder wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I did my CS programme decades ago, we all started with Scheme, which is very high-level, and forced everyone to focus on the algorithms, the math of it, instead of what the hardware is doing, or how the Scheme interpreter is implemented. It gets you going, thinking about values and execution and iteration and recursion. Starting with bits and bytes and hardware would be pretty goddamn boring, I think. You'd lose…

It's interesting as I studied Computer Engineering which focused on the hardware and low level, with some programming on top of that. I was pretty good at that too. However afterwards the Google-style interview algorithm questions do not come naturally for me, and you'd think I'm a complete imposter by the look in some 20-something interviewers eyes, even though have been programming for 20 years...

Post by yters » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 3:20 PM UTC

codenesium wrote: post #71

sansnomme wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linear algebra, discrete math, calculus. The mathematical underpinnings of algorithms and data structures. Turing machines will be a lot more useful once you actually know how to use properties to prove more things. A kindergartner can recite the layman description of an infinitely long tape with ones and zeroes but such simplistic understanding has very little practical use if you don't understand how it fits into t…

I'm not saying these aren't important but for most developers this stuff is rarely going to be used. Most "developer" jobs are not math heavy. I'd rather push someone to learn how to write clean code and focus more on the engineering aspect.

Post by acbart » Mon, Dec 30, 2019, 4:05 PM UTC

lbatx wrote: post #66

burfog wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scheme is deadly boring. You'd lose a lot of students that way. Starting with bits and bytes and hardware would be pretty goddamn fun, I think. I first really got into things with assembly language for DOS. It was interesting to directly control the IRQ controller, real-time clock, interval timer, and keyboard interface. These were all motherboard chips that could be messed with. Years later I passed a mandatory Sche…

You make an interesting (unsupported) assertion here. You, who find talking to an IRQ controller, real-time clock, etc. interesting, find Scheme boring, therefore others (who may not share your interests in such details) will also find it boring. Bit of a logical fallacy there...

Post by JohnL4 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 8:01 PM UTC

delsarto wrote: post #42

TwoNineFive wrote: post #40

I remember reading this a few years back. I stopped reading at some point because there were so many errors, unfinished bits, and just flat-out garbage. Sorry to the author but this needs to improve. It's a good start, but you need to invite fixes and implement them. Put your email address on every single page and invite fixes and then implement them. This could be an awesome resource, but right now it's too full of…

Everyone who tries to create something eventually comes up against being told their work is flat-out garbage. Unfortunately I don't think there is a vaccination for it, and one must just take their chances and hope to build a mental immunity so it doesn't ruin your day. It's sad to say that many don't develop a resistance, and I think we lose many good contributors that way.