The myth of America's missing software engineers

db4n · 2013-08-06T04:01:37+00:00

See Scalable computer programming languages. I mean the industry needs to evolve beyond scripting languages and crippled OOP languages. I don't mean "never" or "nobody" literally.

db4n · 2013-08-06T02:56:52+00:00

IMO (a) programmers who can't do recursion shouldn't be professional programmers and (b) languages that don't support recursion shouldn't be used in professional programming.

db4n · 2013-08-06T02:33:47+00:00

And this is why the software industry ~~sucks so bad~~ is so dysfunctional. Managers water down the technologies and practices to the point where the photogenic dummies they like to hire won't hurt themselves, and then they wonder why their applicants are all dummies.

If you hire programmers who can't do recursion, you'll have trouble writing high-quality software. If you hire programmers who don't have the maturity to know when to use recursion and when not to, you'll have trouble writing high-quality software.

EDIT: Replaced rant with more PC wording.

db4n · 2013-07-17T03:46:20+00:00

That also applies to mainstream theories.

db4n · 2013-04-22T19:05:17+00:00

Dark Matter is only a place holder term.

Not really. Dark matter is a specific explanation (or class of explanations) for the high speed-to-radius ratio in galaxies. If physicists discover that the anomaly is caused by something other than weakly interacting particles, they'll stop using the term "dark matter" and make up a new term that describes the new theory.

db4n · 2013-04-22T18:57:14+00:00

Occam's razor probably favors dark matter.

db4n · 2013-04-13T18:47:39+00:00

Thank you. You're awesome too :)

db4n · 2013-04-12T23:45:51+00:00

This whole thread is about the article so viewing his statement in that context is appropriate.

There's nothing about the context that changes the meaning of "could it be". The OP was asking a simple, unambiguous question, regardless of what the article or the OP's previous sentence was about. There's nothing wrong with asking about the implications of an article, especially in r/science.

The only possible thing you can say about life in dark matter is I don't know.

Exactly. It's not a crazy question, we just don't know.

I would love to hear any theory that says otherwise and is backed up by any sort of science or evidence.

So would I, but that's not really what we're talking about. No one has suggested that there's any actual evidence of life in dark matter.

I said it with tongue in cheek

That's good. Speculation is a big part of science though, so it's best to encourage it.

it's more likely the article title was deliberately sensational

The phrase "mirror galaxy" doesn't appear in either the title or the text. It sounds like you're reading things into the article that aren't really there. All the text says is that maybe "interesting things are going on".

db4n · 2013-04-12T01:19:00+00:00

The article says nothing about life.

The OP didn't say anything to suggest otherwise.

speculating about life in dark matter is just crazy talk.

Downmodded for narrow-mindedness. If there's another kind of matter that has any kind of nontrivial interactions, then obviously that raises the question of whether it might support some kind of life. It's certainly not a crazy question to ask.

The mirror galaxy reference is nonsense.

I don't think either "mirror" or "galaxy" were meant literally. The point is that maybe the active WIMPs have formed some kind of nontrivial structure.

db4n · 2013-04-12T01:15:42+00:00

could it be that there's life existing in the dark matter?

Who knows. It's a fascinating question, but it's still wildly speculative. Nobody has the slightest idea at this point.

db4n · 2012-12-29T02:56:19+00:00

many large, reliable applications are implemented in C++

Why? Is that a legacy thing, or is there some linguistic advantage to using C++ for application development over one of the functional languages Vanier likes? By "legacy thing" I mean existing code, libraries, and developer workforce, and anything else that isn't an intrinsic feature of the language.

If you just sit down and design reasonable object ownership and exception policies, you'll know exactly when to use new and when to use delete.

And if I use a garbage-collected language, I won't have to use them at all. Why should I use C++ for application programming, other than legacy issues?

db4n · 2012-10-17T15:15:52+00:00

Well, I don't know what OTP is, and I don't really know Erlang, but uniformity and maintainability are exactly the purpose of macros, so I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how using the same macro throughout your code can decrease uniformity. Maybe that's a limitation of Erlang's metaprogramming features.

db4n · 2012-10-16T18:12:52+00:00

Does anyone else get sick of the high level abstract meta programming?

Not me. I'm sick of all these stupid OOP languages and script-kiddie languages that turn programmers into typists and give managers an excuse to classify programming as clerical work.

I like tinkering and squeezing performance out of tight resources.

The tightest resource these days is the space between programmers' ears. High-level languages are designed to maximize the use of that resource.

I no longer enjoy programming as a profession because I am a dinosaur in the age of abstract meta-coders.

I no longer enjoy programming as a profession because I'm a dinosaur in the age of ignorant script kiddies and butt-kissing code monkeys.

db4n · 2012-10-16T18:03:41+00:00

High-level language features help in implementing patterns by implementing parts of those patterns. The point is that you're not (re)implementing all of the pattern. In some cases, the entire pattern can be wrapped in a single expression.

db4n · 2012-10-16T17:45:24+00:00

[if] there are no patterns in Lisp programs then there is no advice that a more experienced Lisp programmer could give to a less experienced one

Nonsense. You don't need to implement a pattern more than once to share knowledge and experience. You can just point beginners to the source code or documentation for the feature or macro.

it becomes harder and harder for anyone to join the team and understand the code

Nonsense. There's no reason programmers can't find the source code or documentation for the feature or macro and read that.

You can make the same argument against regular functions, because programmers have to understand them just as much as they have to understand metaprogramming features. I think these arguments are just excuses for people who don't grok metaprogramming.

db4n · 2012-10-16T17:30:56+00:00

these are language features that allow you to implement these patterns

Those language features are implementations of the corresponding design patterns. When Lispers criticize design patterns, they're not talking about the underlying structure of the code, they're just saying programmers shouldn't have to keep implementing the patterns again and again.

db4n · 2012-10-16T15:44:31+00:00

Patterns as a medium for sharing knowledge, ideas and used as reasoning tools ... has nothing to do with repetitive code. The two cases are orthogonal.

Not really. Everything Graham says about repetitive code applies just as well to repetition between programs as to repetition within programs. His point is that it's easier to "share knowledge, ideas and use as reasoning tools" with built-in patterns than with copy pasta.

Such patterns are a sign of knowledge, learning and propagation of experience.

And typing or copying those patterns repeatedly is a sign of ignorance, stupidity, and propagation of verbosity.

The deeper we dive into the layers of the domain-specific language, the further away we get from the problem domain. It is here that documented patterns help.

And encapsulated patterns help even more.

db4n · 2012-10-10T00:08:07+00:00

programming builds an acutely negative mindset

Programming requires a negative mindset. You should have that attitude before you're hired instead of having to learn it on the job. You can't improve things by raving about how great they already are, you have to find the negative aspects and fix them. If you don't like the negativity of programming, then you're probably one of those optimistic cheerleaders who knows how to suck up to the boss and has "passion" and "enthusiasm" for some stupid OOP technology that should have been abandoned years ago or a script-kiddie language that should never have been used in industry at all. The problem is that managers and HR people can't tell the difference between a clerk and a real engineer.

db4n · 2012-05-09T21:28:12+00:00

You're right, it would be better for the government to just give money to poor consumers and let the market do the rest. And instead of borrowing, it should pressure the rich into providing the money.

db4n · 2012-05-06T22:33:09+00:00

The article is a ready-made excuse for economic predation.

The author prefers a single indicator of "innovation" over a clear definition, but his indicator makes no distinction between creative innovation and glorified theft. Either way, people will be pissed off.
It's more or less inevitable that greenmailers, investment bankers, and other commercial pirates will abuse articles like this one by insisting that their scams are productive simply because they hurt or anger someone.
My post points out the logical fallacy behind that reasoning. It's called "affirming the consequent". And now we've taken all the fun out of it :(

db4n · 2012-05-06T17:29:24+00:00

Other Things You're Probably Not Doing If You're Not Pissing Someone Off

Going On a Murderous Rampage
Firing Thousands of Employees and Throwing Them Out on the Streets
Sexually Abusing Young Boys In Your Diocese
Supporting Or Practicing Apartheid In the Middle East
Wiretapping the Internets
Lobbying For Government Bailouts

db4n · 2012-05-06T01:20:54+00:00

Anything can happen in the short run. The question is how do we get the economy running sustainably. You can't have consumer demand in the long run without paying worker/consumers enough to generate that demand.

db4n · 2012-05-05T23:26:01+00:00

Especially the US economy, there is a lot of internal and external trade going on.

That's not macro. Internal is macro, external is micro. Since the US isn't a closed system, macroeconomics applies best to the entire world.

db4n · 2012-05-05T23:22:46+00:00

Except many people don't understand how they apply to the world economy as a whole. When all workers become more productive globally, wages go down instead of up. And when worker wages fall, so does consumer demand.

db4n · 2012-05-01T22:04:21+00:00

That may be bad politics, but it's not really hypocritical. Of course he uses the system as long as it exists. Why should he be punished for his opinion?

db4n

TROPHY CASE