As someone who spends time programming, I of course find myself in conversations with people who aren’t as familiar with it. It doesn’t happen all the time, but these discussions can lead to people coming up with some pretty wild misconceptions about what programming is and what programmers do.
- I’m sure many of you have had similar experiences. So, I thought it would be interesting to ask.
I had some dude here trying to tell me, a mathematician and data scientist who is developing AIs for fun and is a holder of an MA in Visual Effects specializing in procedural design, who has worked on algorithmic video game development, what AIs are or are going to be capable of in procedural/generative/algorithmic game design “because he has played a lot of games” and argued for days with me, cherry-picking everything I wrote attempting to use my words refuting him to support his arguments.
Just… Infuriating.
The files are IN the computer.
-
I’m a programmer, so I must know how to get X done in Y software.
-
I don’t use <social media app> or <messaging system> so I’m some kind of Luddite and can’t possibly know anything useful about computers.
One thing that fascinates me about #1 is that the absolute raw dependency people have on Google doesn’t seem to ever lead to searching for a tutorial.
I’ve lost all faith in tutorials as sources of relevant knowledge. If I’m searching about a specific problem, any from-the-top how-to might as well be Ben Stein reading it aloud at 50% speed, and then a year of my life later, it skips right over the place where something fucked up.
I live in the second one. On purpose. I’ll never wear my debian tshirt.
Me too.
I found that my 2600 t-shirt keeps them at bay. First, they ask what 2600 is, then they make sure that nobody allows me near their computers.
-
I once had a friend who told me, that he finds it interesting that I think and write in 1s and 0s.
Every Hollywood programmer
Confuse him with “I used to do that but I’m nonbinary now”
Oh, my gender, sexuality, and base are also quantum
That might be true of VHDL / Verilog programmers I guess.
Programming and Software Engineering are related, but distinct fields. Programming is relatively easy, Software Engineering is a bit harder and requires more discipline in my opinion.
“Just”
That one word has done a fuck ton of lifting over my career.
“Can’t you just make it do this”
I can’t “just” do anything you fuck head! It takes time and lots of effort!
removed by mod
Also “simple”. “It’s a simple feature.”
It’s like, gotta be just one line of code, right?
Anything can fit in one line of you are brave enough.
Everything is one line of code in a turing machine.
I’m pretty sure that’s a breach of style guide in at least three different languages
but probably not C++
I worked in a post office once. I once had a customer demand some package delivery option, if I remember correctly. He was adamant that it was “only a few lines of code”, that I was difficult for not obliging, and that anyone in the postal service should make code changes like that on the whims of customers. It felt like I could have more luck explaining “wallpaper” to the currents in the ocean…
explaining “wallpaper” to the currents in the ocean…
If this isn’t just a saying I haven’t heard of, I’m doing my best to make it a common place phrase, absolutely perfect in this context!
Thank you so kindly :) It’s not a saying, as far as I know.
I used to work on printer firmware; we were implementing a feature for a text box for if you scanned a certain number of pages on a collated, multi-page copy job. The text box told you it would print the pages it had stored to free up memory for more pages; after those pages had printed, another text box would come up asking if you wanted to keep scanning pages, or just finish the job.
The consensus was that it would be a relatively simple change; 3 months and 80 files changed — with somewhere in the ballpark of 10000-20000 lines changed, — proved that wrong.printer firmware is tens of thousands of lines long
I’m starting to understand why printers are so horrible
Just what was in the main repo (at least one other repo was used for the more secure parts of the code) was a little over 4 million lines. But yeah there’s a lot of complexity behind printers that I didn’t think about until I had worked on them. Of course that doesn’t mean they have to be terrible, it’s just easier to fall into without a good plan (spoiler alert: the specific firmware I was working in didn’t have a good plan)
Out of curiosity do you have any good examples of this hidden complexity? I’ve always kinda wondered how printers work behind the scenes.
A lot of the complexity came from around various scenarios you could be in; my goto whenever people would ask me “Why can’t someone just make printer firmware simple?” is that you could, if you only wanted to copy in one size with one paper type, no margin changes, and never do anything else.
There’s just so many different control paths that need to act differently; many of the bugs I worked on involved scaling and margins. Trying to make sure the image ended up in a proper form before it made it to hardware (which as more complexity, ran on a different processor and OS than the backend so that it could run realtime) when dealing with different input types (flatbed scanner vs a document feeder, which could be a everyday size, or like 3 feet long) different paper sizes, scaling, and output paper. I mainly worked on the copy pipeline, but that also was very complex, involving up to, something like, 7 different pieces in the pipe to transform the image.
Each piece in the pipeline was decently complex, with a few having their own team dedicated to them. In theory, any piece that wasn’t an image provider or consumer could go in any order — although in practice that didn’t happen — so it had to be designed around different types of image containers that could come in.
All of that was also working alongside the job framework, which communicated with the hardware, and made sure what state jobs were in, when different pieces of the pipeline could be available to different jobs, locking out jobs when someone is using the UI in certain states so that they don’t think what’s printing is their job, and handling jobs through any of other interface (like network or web.)
That’s the big stuff that I touched; but there was also localization; the UI and web interfaces as a whole; the more OS side of the printer like logging in, networking, or configuration; and internal pages — any page that the printer generates itself, like a report or test page. I’m sure there’s a lot more than that, and this is just what I’m aware of.
Simple features are often complex to make, and complex features are often way too simple to make.
I believe that it’s not for nothing that simplicity is considered more sophisticated. Many, many cycles of refinement.
deleted by creator
I like to say:
We have a half finished skyscraper, and you’re asking me to Just add a new basement between the second and third floor. Do you see how that might be difficult? If we want to do it, we have to tear down the entire building floor by floor, then build up again from the second floor. Are you prepared to spend the money and push back the release date for that new feature?
“Just” is a keyword that I’m going to triple my estimates. “Just” signifies the product owner has no idea what they are requesting, and it always becomes a dance of explaining why they are wrong.
I would have written that comment if you hadn’t already done it.
I don’t know exactly why people think that we can “just” do whatever they ask for.
Maybe it has something to do with how invisible software is to the tech-illiterate person but I’m not convinced. I’m sure there are other professions that get similar treatment.
I know you built the bridge to support 40 ton vehicles, but I think if we just add a beam across the middle here, we should be able to get 200 tons across this no problem? Seems simple, please have it done by Monday!
It’s a meme to say “can’t you just” at my workplace
“Would you kindly”…
I mean the classic is that you must be “really good at computers” like I’m okay at debugging, just by being methodical, but if you plop me in front of a Windows desktop and ask me to fix your printer; brother, I haven’t fucked with any of those 3 things in over a decade.
I would be as a baby, learning everything anew, to solve your problem.
fuck printers
Yeah I feel this. Fucking huge mechanical boxes of fucking shite that should he lobbed down the stairs and anyone who wants to print should be beaten with toner cartridges till they are black and blue, or cymk
Especially HP printers and honorable mention to Konica Minoltas.
fuck you. my uncle was a dot matrix.
That reminds me of one of those shit jokes from the eighties:
“There’s two new ladies in the typing pool who do a hundred times the work of anyone else.”
“What’re they called?”
“Daisy Wheel and Dot Matrix.”
Oh man love it. In the 80s, I used to go to my grandmother’s work after school. She was a stenographer at the neighborhood newspaper in Brooklyn. If she was alive she’d probably love this. My mom ran a copy room for a high school but I think it would go over her head.
I work in service design and delivery. It’s my job to understand how devices actually function and interact. Can confirm that dev types can learn the stuff if they want to but most have not. Knowing how to set up your fancy computer with all the IDEs in the world is great but not the same as doing that for 5,000 people at once.
I use a car analogy for these situations: You need a mechanic (IT professional.) I’m an engineer (coder.) They’re both technically demanding jobs, but they use very different skillsets: IT pros, like mechanics, have to think laterally across a wide array of technology to pinpoint and solve vague problems, and they are very good at it because they do it often.
Software engineers are more like the guy that designed one part of the transmission on one very specific make of car. Can they solve the same problems as IT pros? Sure! But it’ll take them longer and the solution might be a little weird.
Can they solve the same problems as IT pros? Sure! But it’ll take them longer and the solution might be a little weird.
Well the person just wants a solution that works. They didn’t say it has to be the best solution of all solutions.
It’s funny how soon they realize they want a good one.
I go to excuse now is “I haven’t used windows in 10 years”, when people call me for tech support.
I literally can’t help them lol
“I don’t know anything about your apple device, I prefer to own my devices and not have somone else dictate what I can use it for”
deleted by creator
I enjoy your comment so much because your methodical and patient approach to debugging code is exactly what’s required to fix a printer. You literally are really good at computers even if your aren’t armed with a lot of specific knowledge. It’s the absolutely worst because troubleshooting without knowledge and experience is painfully slow and the whole time I’m thinking"they know so much more about this than I do! If they’d just slow down and read what’s on the screen …" But many people struggle to do even basic troubleshooting. Their lack of what you have makes them inept.
I was gonna say, the OP here sounds perfectly good at computers. Most people either have so little knowledge they can’t even start on solving their printer problem no matter what, or don’t have the problem solving mindset needed to search for and try different things until they find the actual solution.
There’s a reason why specific knowledge beyond the basic concepts is rarely a hard requirement in software. The learning and problem solving abilities are way more important.
I think the difference is that they don’t know where to even start, and we clearly do and that’s the way to differentiate from perfectly working computer and a basically brick in their minds.
deleted by creator
that programmers make $300-500k/year
After doing it for 15 years, I must be good at it and everything should be easy.
hidethepainharold.jpg
As a non-dev (tinker for fun) observer- it sounds like your friends and family think you’re working in IT, but their assumptions thereafter are fair. Is that accurate? That the misconception is software dev does not equal IT?
100%
I program – yet I’ve been asked to fix a camera and Apple Maps.
I mean, I can fix them, but not because I’m a programmer. Makes it hard for normies to understand the difference.
It goes a bit farther than that, even: IT work doesn’t always equal IT work. Someone can be an expert in managing Linux-based load sharing servers and have no idea how to help a family member troubleshoot why their windows install is slow. Sure, they might have a better idea about how to start, but they’d be essentially starting from scratch for that specific problem rather than being able to apply any of their expertise to it.
Think of it like a programmer is a car builder, some IT people drive them for a living, others are mechanics. Someone who specializes in driving F1 cars might not have any idea why your car is rattling. The programmer might be able to figure it out if they built that car or the cause is something similar to what they see in the ones they have built. But if they build semis, odds are that isn’t the case. But they might have a better idea than say a doctor.
I use the medecine analogy: you wouldn’t ask your dentist or even your GP to operate on your brain; doesn’t mean that they are not good at what they do though.
Yeah, I like that one better, too.
Yeah, sorry for oversimplifying. I worked in IT resellers for years and am acutely aware of all the different roles, and even specializations within that. The irony is back then (20 years) you’d get walked around the halls and introd to “the networking guy,” “procurement for paper and toner,” “Mike who needs components for the pbx; or the as400” - I had a thing for everyone from data centers to keyboards… but “oh, those are the software guys… they don’t buy stuff” - today it’s a devtools man’s world. Everything is for the software guys! (Having said that, my friends that grew into devops are finding new (old) opportunities managing actual on site data centers and co-los more often as the unit economics of AWS, gcp, azure, etc haven’t panned out as hoped)
- You’re a hacker (only if you count the shit I program as hacks, being hack jobs)
- You can fix printers
- You’re some sort of super sherlock for guessing the reason behind problems (they’ll tell you “my computer is giving me an error”, fail to provide further details and fume at your inability to guess what’s wrong when they fail to replicate)
- If it’s on the screen, it’s production ready
I’ve had questions like your 3rd bullet point in relation to why somebody’s friend is having trouble with connecting a headset to a TV.
No idea. I don’t know what kind of headset or what kind of TV. They are all different Grandma.
If it’s on the screen, it’s production ready
“I gave you a PNG, why can’t you just make it work?”
I actually get that somewhat often, but for 3D printing. People think a photo of a 3D model is “the model”
Dude, I would just 2d print the png they sent and give them the piece of paper.
If they complained, I would say: “I literally printed the thing you told me to print.”
deleted by creator
Why wouldn’t you just create a GUI interface in Visual Basic to track their IP addresses tho?
That was a decade or two ago. Now you need a react SPA webapp using angular and Rust and utilize the bandwidth of the Cloud with machine learning. To find the IP.
that’s not going to work anymore, you need iot on the edge now
Not programming per se but my sister thinks it’s okay to have 300+ Chrome tabs open and just memorize the relative locations of them whenever she needs something. She’s lucky she has a beefy computer.
High spec machines are a curse 🤔
This is horrifying lol
I also leave every firefox tab open until I run out of RAM, at which point I use the “close tabs to left” button, moving some tabs that I still want to check out to the right beforehand. On firefox, one can simply use the list all tabs button to easily navigate or search through all tabs, so no memorization is needed (or just type the title of the document in the address bar and it will just switch to the tab if you have it open).
check out tab stash extension
I might be your sister 😐
Stop that.
I use the tree tab extension and just leave several hundred of tabs open and use the “open upon restart” option to open everything again. Luckily firefox has automatic tab unloading, which means it only uses about 6-8 GiB of RAM. Sadly the mobile app seems to cope less well with this method (I only have 3GB of RAM on it), it sometimes randomly crashes or refuses to open a new tab.
A lot people compleatly overrate the amount of math required. Like its probably a week since I used a aritmetic operator.
On the other hand in certain applications you can replace a significant amount of programming ability with a good undertstanding of vector maths.
Negl I absolutely did this when I was first getting into it; especially with langs where you actually have to import something to access “higher-level” math functions. All of my review materials have me making arithmetic programs, but none of it goes over a level of like. 9th grade math, tops. (Unless you’re fucking with satellites or lab data, but… I don’t do that.)
At the same time, I find it amazing how many programmers never make the cognitive jump from the “playing with legos” mental model to “software is math”.
They’re both useful, but to never understand the latter is a bit worrying. It’s not about using math, it’s about thinking about code and data in terms of mapping arbitrary data domains. It’s a much more powerful abstraction than the legos and enables you to do a lot more with it.
For anybody who finds themselves in this situation I recommend an absolute classic: Defmacro’s “The nature of Lisp”. You don’t have to make it through the whole thing and you don’t have to know Lisp, hopefully it will click before the end.
Read that knowing nothing of lisp before and nothing clicked tbh.
When talking about tools that simplify writing boilerplate, it only makes sense to me to call them code generatiors if they generate code for another language. Within a single language a tool that simplifies complex tasks is just a library or could be implemented as a library. I don’t see the point with programmers not utilizing ‘code generation’ due to it requiring external tools. They say that if such tools existed in the language natively:
we could save tremendous amounts of time by creating simple bits of code that do mundane code generation for us!
If code is to be reused you can just put it in a function, and doing that doesn’t take more effort than putting it in a code generation thingy. They preach how the xml script (and lisp I guess) lets you introduce new operators and change the syntax tree to make things easier, but don’t acknowledge that functions, operator overriding etc accomplish the same thing only with different syntax, then go on to say this:
We can add packages, classes, methods, but we cannot extend Java to make addition of new operators possible. Yet we can do it to our heart’s content in XML - its syntax tree isn’t restricted by anything except our interpreter!
What difference does it make that the syntax tree changes depending on your code vs the call stack changes depending on your code? Of course if you define an operator (apparently also called a function in lisp) somewhere else it’ll look better than doing each step one by one in the java example. Treating functions as keywords feels like a completely arbitrary decision. Honestly they could claim lisp has no keywords/operators and it would be more believable. If there is to be a syntax tree, the parenthesis seem to be a better choice for what changes it than the functions that just determine what happens at each step like any other function. And even going by their definition, I like having a syntax that does a limited number of things in a more visually distinct way more than a syntax does limitless things all in the same monotonous way.
Lisp comes with a very compact set of built in functions - the necessary minimum. The rest of the language is implemented as a standard library in Lisp itself.
Isn’t that how every programming language works? It feels unfair to raise this as an advantage against a markup language.
Data being code and code being data sounded like it was leading to something interesting until it was revealed that functions are a seperate type and that you need to mark non-function lists with an operator for them to not get interpreted as functions. Apart from the visual similarity in how it’s written due to the syntax limitations of the language, data doesn’t seem any more code in lisp than evaluating strings in python. If the data is valid code it’ll work, otherwise it won’t.
The only compelling part was where the same compiler for the code is used to parse incoming data and perform operations on it, but even that doesn’t feel like a game changer unless you’re forbidden from using libraries for parsing.
Finally I’m not sure how the article relates to code being math neither. It just felt like inventing new words to call existing things and insisting that they’re different. Or maybe I just didn’t get it at all. Sorry if this was uncalled for. It’s just that I had expected more after being promised enlightenment by the article
This is a person that appears to actually think XML is great, so I wouldn’t expect them to have valid opinions on anything really lol
removed by mod
the “playing with legos” mental model
??
Function/class/variables are bricks, you stack those bricks together and you are a programmer.
I just hired a team to work on a bunch of Power platform stuff, and this “low/no-code” SaaS platform paradigm has made the mentality almost literal.
I think I misunderstood lemmyvore a bit, reading some criticism into the Lego metaphor that might not be there.
To me, “playing with bricks” is exactly how I want a lot of my coding to look. It means you can design and implement the bricks, connectors and overall architecture, and end up with something that makes sense. If running with the metaphor, that ain’t bad, in a world full of random bullshit cobbled together with broken bricks, chewing gum and exposed electrical wire.
If the whole set is wonky, or people start eating the bricks instead, I suppose there’s bigger worries.
(Definitely agree on “low code” being one of those worries, though - turns into “please, Jesus Christ, just let me write the actual code instead” remarkably often. I’m a BizTalk survivor and I’m not even sure that was the worst.
My take was that they’re talking more about a script kiddy mindset?
I love designing good software architecture, and like you said, my object diagrams should be simple and clear to implement, and work as long as they’re implemented correctly.
But you still need knowledge of what’s going on inside those objects to design the architecture in the first place. Each of those bricks is custom made by us to suit the needs of the current project, and the way they come together needs to make sense mathematically to avoid performance pitfalls.
We must do different sorts of programming…
There’s a wide variety of types of programming. It’s nice that the core concepts can carry across between the disparate branches.
If I’m doing a particular custom view I’ll end up using
sin cos tanfor some basic trig but that’s about as complex as any mobile CRUD app gets.I’m sure there are some math heavy mobile apps but they’re the exception that proves the rule.
You should probably use matrices rather than trig for view transformations. (If your platform supports it and has a decent set of matrix helper functions.) It’ll be easier to code and more performant in most cases.
I mean I’m not sure how to use matrices to draw the path of 5 out of 6 sides of a hexagon given a specific center point but there are some surprisingly basic shapes that don’t exist in Android view libraries.
I’ll also note that this was years ago before android had all this nice composable view architecture.
Hah, yeah a hexagon is a weird case. In my experience, devs talking about “math in a custom view” has always meant simply “I want to render some arbitrary stuff in its own coordinate system.” Sorry my assumption was too far. 😉
Yeah it was a weird ask to be fair.
Thankfully android lets you calculate those views separately from the draw calls so all that math was contained to measurement calls rather than calculated on draw.
Tbf, that’s probably because most CS majors at T20 schools get a math minor as well because of the obscene amount of math they have to take.
Sometimes when people see me struggle with a bit of mental maths or use a calculator for something that is usually easy to do mentally, they remark “aren’t you a programmer?”
I always respond with “I tell computers how to do maths, I don’t do the maths”
Which leads to the other old saying, “computers do what you tell them to do, not what you want them to do”.
As long as you don’t let it turn around and let the computer dictate how you think.
I think it was Dijkstra that complained in one of his essays about naming uni departments “Computer Science” rather than “Comput_ing_ Science”. He said it’s a symptom of a dangerous slope where we build our work as programmers around specific computer features or even specific computers instead of using them as tools that can enable our mind to ask and verify more and more interesting questions.
The scholastic discipline deserves that kind of nuance and Dijkstra was one of the greatest.
The practical discipline requires you build your work around specific computers. Much of the hard earned domain knowledge I’ve earned as a staff software engineer would be useless if I changed the specific computer it’s built around - Android OS. An android phone has very specific APIs, code patterns and requirements. Being ARM even it’s underlying architecture is fundamentally different from the majority of computers (for now. We’ll see how much the M1 arm style arch becomes the standard for anyone other than Mac).
If you took a web dev with 10YOE and dropped them into my Android code base and said “ok, write” they should get the structure and basics but I would expect them to make mistakes common to a beginner in Android, just as if I was stuck in a web dev environment and told to write I would make mistakes common to a junior web dev.
It’s all very well and good to learn the core of CS: the structures used and why they work. Classic algorithms and when they’re appropriate. Big O and algorithmic complexity.
But work in the practical field will always require domain knowledge around specific computer features or even specific computers.
I think Dijkstra’s point was specifically about uni programs. A CS curriculum is supposed to make you train your mind for the theory of computation not for using specific computers (or specific programming languages).
Later during your career you will of course inevitably get bogged down into specific platforms, as you’ve rightly noted. And that’s normal because CS needs practical applications, we can’t all do research and “pure” science.
But I think it’s still important to keep it in mind even when you’re 10 or 20 or 30 years into your career and deeply entrenched into this and that technology. You have to always think “what am I doing this for” and “where is this piece of tech going”, because IT keeps changing and entire sections of it get discarded periodically and if you don’t ask those questions you risk getting caught in a dead-end.
He has a rant where he’s calling software engineers basically idiots who don’t know what they’re doing, saying the need for unit tests is a proof of failure. The rest of the rant is just as nonsensical, basically waving away all problems as trivial exercises left to the mentally challenged practitioner.
I have not read anything from/about him besides this piece, but he reeks of that all too common, insufferable, academic condescendance.
He does have a point about the theoretical aspect being often overlooked, but I generally don’t think his opinion on education is worth more than anyone else’s.
Article in question: https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036.html
Sounds about right for an academic computer scientist, they are usually terrible software engineers.
At least that’s what I saw from the terrible coding practices my brother learned during his CS degree (and what I’ve seen from basically every other recent CS grad entering the workforce that didn’t do extensive side projects and self teaching) that I had to spend years unlearning him afterwards when we worked together on a startup idea writing lots of code.
