I tend to agree with you, but I'm compelled by the argument that organizing your productive time in a way that minimizes the impact of context switches will make your programs much better anyways.
There might be a good reason why code developed under extreme focus also tends to be inscrutable to others.
On the other hand, extreme focus can and should be used to make a complex algorithm simple. It all depends on the programmer's competency to begin with. If he/she doesn't care or know how to make code readable, it never will be readable despite their level of concentration.
The corollary is true as well. I, as well as many others I imagine, have had to fix and maintain dumpster fires of spaghetti code developed under the standard distraction-filled modern business day.
Distraction doesn't beget good code; instead, a good programmer learns how to be as productive as they can despite the dysfunction of a typical modern business.
Intense focus can be a symptom of ADD/ADHD [1]. I've always wondered if software developers who experience flow/zone (myself included) have varying levels of mild ADD that presents as intense focus.
> But at minimum, every data scientist needs to know SQL; there's no way around it.
Is it no longer the case that every programmer has to know SQL? I have always and still do consider knowledge of SQL a minimum requisite for any programming job...
It is not the case that every programmer has to know SQL (if it ever was).
Programming is now such a big field that plenty of people will go their whole careers without knowledge that's foundational for other programmers - whether it be SQL, linear algebra, memory management, distributed systems, ...
In a way, it's very cool. Instead of a single-dimensional "how good a programmer are you", we've got a multidimensional space. That, naturally, yields a lot more interesting corners, like, say, what could be invented by someone who knows a lot about databases and GPUs.
There are plenty of programming jobs that have no need for SQL, it's just easy to forget how broad the field is. There was never a need for SQL when I was programming microcontrollers, or DSP work in python/matlab
In the US, what is a left policy and what is a right policy seems to depend entirely on which party thought of it first, not on any sound ideology. Party politics all the way down.
Usually a big component to these programs are weekly exams to make sure you’re on track. I’ve looked into some of the local ones and usually if you fail a few you will be dismissed from the program.
85% means little if Lambda has a low bar to dismissing students that are struggling and not keeping up with the material.
Most software that's correctness critical is not written in Java.
But I could see KeY-verified voting machines as at least better than the status quo (as long as you take it as an assumption that for whatever reason we absolutely need voting machines).
> The reaction of the Java developer community to our report is somewhat disappointing: instead of using our fixed (and verified!) version of mergeCollapse(), they opted to increase the allocated runLen “sufficiently”. As we showed, this is not necessary. In consequence, whoever uses java.utils.Collection.sort() is forced to over allocate space.
> I think this list makes no sense unless it is made into a wiki of some sort with community contributions from hundreds of people.
You'd just end up with a lot of noise. The person who wrote this list even has a few scientific publications, which is more background than most people who contribute to the wiki would have.
Perhaps we could create a Foundation that pays a group of scientists a modest salary to spend all their time curating the list. The public can send the Foundation any comments they want.
Of course, the Foundation can't pay enough people to do all the work itself. So they could crowd-source some of the work to people from various fields who know enough about the field to judge what's really under-investigated vs. things that are already thoroughly investigated. Those groups -- panels, let's call them -- could get together and make recommendations to the Foundation.
The Foundation employees could form panels, get their recommendations, and the synthesize that into a list.
And if we're going to all this work to create a good curated list, then maybe the government or donors or whoever could even fund some of the ideas that come out of the final curated list. Not a ton of money -- just enough to hire one or two people to work on the idea for few years. Maybe call the final curated list a Portfolio or something.
IDK what we could call such a Foundation. I guess if the government funds it we could call it the National Science Foundation or something list that. And if it's private, probably focused on more near-term stuff, maybe "VC firm".
That's a promotional video showing you what the most automated parts look like when automation goes perfectly. Not everything is so automated, and everything doesn't always go perfectly.
I'm not saying that backbreaking work doesn't exist within automotive manufacturing, but that categorizing the entire workforce as engaging in such work is clearly a gross exaggeration the way modern manufacturing is done.
Sure, backbreaking work exists within the industry, but you can also tell from how some people are dressed (just street clothes with no safety gear) and by how fast the line moves that there's a lot of jobs that are no more physically demanding than some office work or fast food work.
E.g. it's someone's job to sit in a new car and make sure all the buttons and interface elements work, or to visually inspect the paint job and flag blemishes for fixing further down the line etc.
There might be a good reason why code developed under extreme focus also tends to be inscrutable to others.