Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re:Interesting (Score 1) 275

Sure there is.

A programmer writes computer programs. This is the easy part.

A computer scientist is a mathematician specializing in computer science. (Though there are quite a few people with CS degrees who do not fit that description. That's not their fault, but that of the institution that issued that credential.)

A software engineer is just a programmer with discipline envy.

Comment Re: Programming (Score 1) 275

This is a tree, but you don't need to understand anything about graph theory to implement this.

That's true for quite a bit. You don't need to have any understanding of the why, just a basic understanding of when {thing} should be used. Implementation is typically trivial, so just discovering that {thing} would be a good fit for your problem (thanks to google) you can get away with knowing even less.

Before you get the wrong idea, I think a strong mathematics background is incredibly helpful. (With a better understanding, there are times when you can go "I can guarantee x, so don't need to account for y so I can simplify this to ..." and net a boost in performance and some simpler code.) Though it's certainly not essential for an absurd majority of developers. Out side a few domains, the hard part is already done and printed in every textbook.

Comment Re: Programming (Score 1) 275

I've done quite a bit of 3D graphics work, and I strongly disagree. You need very little. You say "Linear algebra (matrices) and trig" but you don't need much beyond what matrix operations to apply to achieve some goal (you need to actually understand very little, and far less if you use a matrix library) and soa cah toa on the trig side. Just about every major problem you'd encounter has a near standard solution.

Calculus and differential equations are need for doing simulations of physical processes

This is a bit outside my experience, as all I've done there is a 3D physics engine for a game. Even then, I suspect all you need to know are the equations and a few well-understood approaches to integration, actually understanding the math (or the physics) doesn't seem necessary. (Though I'll admit that it is helpful.)

You can be an excellent programmer without strong math skills, even in some areas where a solid understanding of mathematics would seem essential. I'd even argue against the need for a strong background in logic. If Slashdot is any indication, most developers don't understand even basic logic. They've simply confused their rudimentary understanding of Boolean algebra with a complete understanding of formal logic.

This isn't to slight developers, on the contrary. It's art, after all, not engineering. Be proud that you've mastered a skillful discipline.

Comment Re:I don't see anything different. (Score 1) 118

Believe it or not, important decisions even in a corporate environment are often based on emotion or "gut instinct" and not on hard-data.

We're not talking about some silly upper-management parody, but highly intelligent people who know better.

People are people, after all, not perfectly rational beings.

Comment Re:Nice and all (Score 1) 41

Odd, I've had the same experience, but with Chrome.

Ignoring subjective experience for the moment, the question was to how bloated and performant each was in relation to the other. In that case, the victor is clear. I'll put hard data ahead of wishes and good feelings any day.

But your argument fails on ... .well content.

I thought it was fair. His comment was nonsense. Quibble if you want, that's fine, but keep in mind that WebVR is not only included in FF Nightly, but Chrome experimental builds as well. Not only is his point irrelevant, it's meaningless to distinguish between the two browsers on that basis as both of them are building implementations of the same fledgling specification.

His comment was both irrelevant and misleading. I think my one-word reply sums that up nicely.

365 Days of drinking Lo-Cal beer. = 1 Lite-year