I'm pretty sure that at least some of you are pretty good programmers here so I just have a simple question for you:
Do you really need to be that great at math to become a good programmer?
You will need some basic calculus knowledge to read SICP though.
Name:
Descartes2011-03-06 15:42
It's not about how deep do you know math and what kind of its branches, but rather it's the matter of doing math (or physic, or chemistry) - this gives you training in analytical thinking. It's really helpful, because you don't get tired while thinking on complicated problems and you are able to to understand thing on many levels.
Shitty programmers are bad at mathematics, good programmers are good at mathematics. The common denominator is high intelligence. The people who are pure CS at my university have the ugliest fucking code and worst fucking ideas when it comes to approaching a new problem, the mathematicians produce (given some programming education of course) the most beautiful code and most high performance solutions.
That is my experience at least.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-06 16:05
Protip: Use SHR for divide operations as opposed to DIV for improved performance and latency
It depends on what you're trying to do and in what language. High level languages take care of much of the peripheral math that you would see at a lower level. It is the difference between being an electrician or building a house.
>>5 the mathematicians produce (given some programming education of course) the most beautiful code
No. Their code is ugly. It has more i,j,k,l,m,n,o,p,x,y,z variables than needed.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 0:36
If you could skip calculus and all that and just go to mathematical reasoning you'd be set. Then you'd take abstract algebra and real analysis, complex analysis... you'd walk back to your programming classes and slap their shit for sure
>>5
Negatory. I've read plenty of code from mathematicians and physicists that looks like hell. It just depends on the person.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 2:50
Math is a useless pseudoscience. Infinity and Set Theory considered harmful for good programmer. End of story.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 2:52
Conventional computer science programs, as mentioned, do require students to study a variety of subjects, from arts and humanities to math and science. For students who are eager to learn marketable skills quickly or who have already completed a bachelor's degree, this can be seen as a disadvantage. And not every student will take a summer co-op or internship, and they will be at a distinct disadvantage to others who do get work or research experience.
Other students who aren't strong in non-science based courses may find it difficult to balance their time studying, wishing that they had more time to complete the coursework that's more important to them. Still other students might find the more advanced computer science topics too demanding and not relevant enough to programming.
Although computer science course at traditional universities are rich in theory, programming-bound students might view the many hours spent in lecture hall sapping time that could be spent learning by doing. (programming specific schools, on the other hand, tend to maximize the number of hours students spend actively programming, meeting with their development teams, or otherwise interacting with students participating in hands-on work.)
Finally four-year universities simply don't appeal to everyone. Individuals who have already completed a degree may be better served in a program that adds new knowledge only in a specialized field. Some students simply don't learn well from lectures, but easily absorb information when faced with hands-on problem solving. And while some students do best in clearly directed or guided learning environments, others thrive in independent learning scenarios (like the kind online learning provides); still others do their best when working with a group of peers.
-- Marie Ferrer, a graduate of a traditional computer science program.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 2:53
There are two main problems with mathematics:
* The mathematical abstraction may not be suitable with respect to all real-world applications that are based on it. There are occasions where people use their real-world knowledge but run into an error because the abstraction is not applicable. Such cases can pose serious problems to users because the source of the error is not obvious to them. Some authors even discourage the use of abstractions for this reason.
* The abstraction may be too remote or abstract, so that users have to invest too much effort into translating the abstraction into their world. In this case, the abstraction does not help users. Instead, it forms an obstacle to them.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 2:53
The problem with math is: mathematician uses a mathematical metaphor to describe some concept. The metaphor isn't the thing he describes. But math allows one to take the metaphor, and run with it, making arguments that are built entirely on metaphor, but which bear no relation to the real underlying concept. And he believes that whatever conclusions he draws from the metaphor must, therefore, apply to the original concept.
As said Nietzsche: There are no educators. As a thinker, one should speak only of self-education. The education of youth by others is either an experiment, conducted on one as yet unknown and unknowable, or a leveling on principle, to make the new character, whatever it may be, conform to the habits and customs that prevail.
>>22 people at university...
are retards. What a silly thing to say.
While it would be in theory possible to self-educate oneself, a school or a university provides you with useful resources and additional (though ultimately arbitrary) motivation.
>university provides you with useful resources
Where is the usefulness of Set Theory?
>additional (though ultimately arbitrary) motivation.
If you need this kind of motivation, why not hire a lady in latex that would whip you, when you're being lazy?
>>27 Where is the usefulness of Set Theory? Are you retarded? I was talking about the usefulness of resources provided by universities, not the stuff you learn there.
For example: libraries, tutors, contacts you can use to get internships/jobs.
If you need this kind of motivation [...] when you're being lazy? Not everyone is born perfect. How much would you care about learning stuff when you're a kid?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 5:50
>>29
>libraries
You can steal from torrents for free.
>internships/jobs
You can open your own business, instead of begging big brother for work. Don't be a pitiful worm.
>Not everyone is born perfect.
Then it should became unborn.
>How much would you care about learning stuff when you're a kid?
I studied what I wanted. For example, I've learned english language just to be able to get information on programming. And, yes, I never cared much about other subjects, like my own language and literature, as they're useless.
>>38
Well, "evil" and "good" are rather vague, but I hope that neither you nor >>36 implied that >>30 isn't a troll. And being a troll is somewhat "evil."
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 6:28
>>39 Well, "evil" and "good" are rather vague
Christians would disagree with you, as well as mathematicians, who believe they can prove everything.
>>40
Well, Christians subscribe to a particular cosmology to which I don't, and the Christian definition of "good" is something like "whatever is a part of God's plan."
Though your claim about mathematicians doesn't make sense. I believe you were brutally sodomized by one as a child and that's why there's so much hate inside of you.
>>40
Well, Christopher subscribe to a particular anus to which I don't, and Christopher's definition of "haskal" is something like "loeb f = fmap ($ loeb f) f"
Though your claim about fictional languages doesn't make sense. I believe you were brutally sodomized by a nomad as a child and that's why there's so much cum inside your anus.
mathematicians, who believe they can prove everything.
Where have you been in the past century?
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 7:56
>>43>>41
Math people do believe in axioms, which is just another word for dogmas, similiar to Bible's commandments. Using these axioms they judge and make-up truth.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 8:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_infinity
>there is a set I (the set which is postulated to be infinite), such that the empty set is in I and such that whenever any x is a member of I, the set formed by taking the union of x with its singleton {x} is also a member of I.
That there is God, omnipresent and omnipotent.
>>49
He's just a troll who thinks math requires belief. He doesn't think we can or should talk about any mathematical construct as long as it's not the one on which our reality runs on (it's either that or he thinks reality is some mystical thing, which is doubtful as he sounded to me like some ultrafinitist troll with some antisemitic shades).
Do not respond to him, he does not think rationally and just uses ad-hominem's. I wouldn't know if he's a troll or not and I'll just say that Poe's law applies here.
Name:
Anonymous2011-03-07 9:10
>>49
If you use them, then you believe in them. Why should you believe?
>>50
>ultrafinitist troll with some antisemitic shades
Nope. I'm what you call a subjective idealist, so I don't believe in "objectivity", from which follows that any jew is my enemy, because they forced modern objectivism into math and philosophy. I also approve nazis for they followed Nietzsche and opposed Set Theory.