[stcredzero]

Those things aren't taught in CS programs as the majority of companies don't need those skills. Most want application development such-as a web or iOS app developer.

This sort of thing is very relevant for someone writing an application or a server process. Programmers who can write their own compiler are much better C and C++ programmers, because they have relevant background. Programmers who understand the low level stuff can write faster code when it's important, and they know better where to look when optimizing. Since when has our "field" become so flubby that we're now eschewing the notion of background knowledge?

Are you telling me that we are churning out Comp Sci grads who couldn't write their own low level libraries or compilers? Tech people should have at least a working knowledge of how their own tools work, to the extent that if civilization fell, they could have a good chance of recreating primitive versions of those things.

However Computer Engineering programs teach those concepts as the focus is on low power micro controllers.

Also relevant to high performance code. Also relevant to game engines. Also relevant to interfacing servers with legacy code. Also relevant to technology like WASM. Whoever decided to relegate stuff like that to Computer Engineering seems guilty of the same ignorance I see in these recent students.

[HuggableSquare]

I'm just going to throw in my experience here as someone who never went to college but currently writes software for a living.

I do mainly frontend web development with EmberJS, and occasionally work on our backend which is also JS, and I've been doing that for a little over 2 years now.

I never went to college and so a lot of the stuff you guys have been talking about in this thread goes right over my head. I've never written a compiler, the last time I wrote any C++ was high school, and I would so easily fail a lot of these interviews if those were the questions being asked. With all of that said, I think I do a good job at what I do without all of that knowledge. The industry is increasingly heading towards web/app dev in a lot of positions as other people mentioned, and I think it's very elitist to judge people for not knowing everything you do, even if you think it's important. The fact that this industry is becoming so open to so many people is amazing. Me being able to find a good job without a college degree just because of my knowledge of computers is what I love about tech. I think mindsets like yours are what help drive people away from it because they think they need a ton of knowledge to get an entry-level job, and that's just simply not true.

I don't want to sound like I'm accusing you of being malicious, I just wanted to share my point of view as someone who is relatively new to the industry and never went to college and doesn't have the knowledge that you are suggesting is very relevant. Maybe it is relevant and I just haven't figured that out yet, but from where I'm sitting that feels like something that could be taught instead of a hard and fast rule for hiring.

[stcredzero]

I never went to college and so a lot of the stuff you guys have been talking about in this thread goes right over my head...I think it's very elitist to judge people for not knowing everything you do, even if you think it's important.

Fair enough. However, if someone did go to college, they should at least know what they know, and know what they don't know. If someone is applying to a job with a 3.75 GPA where they might be doing some C++ and they go into an interview and try to tell you that a null pointer takes up no data, they haven't been well served by their education. They should at least know what they don't know, and not waste everybody's time.

However, you should know that these things are important. There are levels of knowledge deeper than being just a user of something.

I think mindsets like yours are what help drive people away from it because they think they need a ton of knowledge to get an entry-level job, and that's just simply not true.

So a generalist Comp Sci degree just needs to shrink into Web Development because of your feelings? Look, Web Development is a fine job, but it's not the same as a generalist field of knowledge like Comp Sci. Should mechanics expect that a Physics degree only be limited to their knowledge because of their feelings? They're applying Physics, after all. (Warning: don't you go and denigrate mechanics! That would be elitist.)

The very fact that you can have a job in tech without a Comp Sci degree isn't a justification for the dumbing down of Comp Sci. It shows that it happened needlessly!

Maybe it is relevant and I just haven't figured that out yet, but from where I'm sitting that feels like something that could be taught instead of a hard and fast rule for hiring.

Let's say you discovered an interviewee thought that a 404 meant the request never made it to the server. Let's say they also got a 4.0 GPA at some Web Development coding academy with a great reputation. Wouldn't you at least be scratching your head?

These are things that used to be taught in a Computer Science degree. Now they aren't taught, and companies are going to have to teach new graduate hires this stuff that people used to take multiple semesters to learn? It also used to be that Freshmen in college were expected to know how to conjugate verbs and compose grammatically correct sentences. Now TAs (I used to be one) are expected to teach these things to Freshmen. How is this not a decline in standards?

[ovao]

The question becomes: to what extent does acumen for writing a compiler overlap with the acumen for writing reliable code productively?

I think, generally speaking, the overlap in a Venn diagram of that would actually be relatively small.

[WalterBright]

People don't tolerate compiler bugs very well. I'd say there's quite a bit of overlap.

[ovao]

I think you're arguing that without good compiler authors, a typical application developer would be inherently unproductive. Which is true — compilers are necessary tools, and it's necessary that they be good.

But what I was suggesting is that one does not need to be capable of being both a compiler author and an application developer (if, for the sake of discussion, we avoid any semantic arguments and treat these as generally different things) to be of good value. I don't know how to, say, write a proper lexer, or write any assembly worth any salt at all, but I can write what I consider to be good, reliable application code at a reasonable level of productivity.

[lsc]

>People don't tolerate compiler bugs very well. I'd say there's quite a bit of overlap.

I don't see how your first point is related to the second. The goal for most webapps is to get something that works most of the time. Most software engineers simply don't need to worry about their third nine, much less their fourth

[jacobsenscott]

My school's primary languages were C and C++, and a smattering of java because it was just getting popular. Certainly the low level understanding that comes from writing a lot of code in those languages is helpful.

But the imperative/procedural mindset that it drills into you leads to some really terrible application code, and it takes a lot of exposure to higher level languages to break out of that mindset. It took me years. Switching to ruby was like starting from scratch.

By all means hire a C++ programmer to write your web app. They'll be able to debug your performance issues ricky tick. But also be prepared for some heinous procedural js/ruby/php/clojure/elixer/whatever.

[stcredzero]

By all means hire a C++ programmer to write your web app.

No one is advocating that anyone write web apps with C++. There are other kinds of servers. The complaint is that the once generalist value of a Comp Sci degree is now dumbed down, and grads are missing background knowledge they once had.

But also be prepared for some heinous procedural js/ruby/php/clojure/elixer/whatever.

This is yet another failing of Comp Sci degrees.

[jacobsenscott]

I think you are making a few assumptions that don't hold anymore based on your own CS education (I'm obviously making an assumption there...). I got my CS degree in 98 and there was a strong emphasis on C, C++, algorithms, and systems programming at the time because that's where the jobs were. We only had a cursory overview of other programming languages and paradigms, and no assembly - there were no jobs there. Scripting languages were for unwashed systems administrators, and no real programmer would touch them. Functional programming was a weird little academic thing with no future. OO was "if it is a noun make it a class".

There was a fairly good chance you would end up needing to write your own data structures, algorithms, sockets code and come up with a network protocol. You would run compilers, linkers, etc. Basically systems programming lined up with the job market.

Naturally after that I thought that was the "proper" way to teach CS. It worked for me. I got a jobs doing things I learned.

20 years later, I literally haven't run a compiler in years. I use libraries for data structures. I don't need to worry about allocating memory, billion dollar industries run on scripting languages. People are passing functions to functions that return functions like that's how it's always been.

I guess my point is "generalist" education needs to evolve with the industry. That means spending less time on low level details so you can spend more time on the tools, techniques and concepts used today. It isn't a "dumbing down" - it is changing the mix. You can only do so much in 4 years. What was "generalist" 20 years ago is "specialist" today, and it should be.

[stcredzero]

It isn't a "dumbing down" - it is changing the mix.

When it's leaving out background information, it's dumbing down. Programmers should at least know the basics of how indirection works. Why is it that so many interviewees with gold-pated GPAs would tell me null pointers used up no memory? Do they have the foggiest idea what happens when they add a member in a Python/Ruby program and how that differs from adding a pointer to a struct?

There's a difference between having the background information and treating everything as if it's hazy magic. It's excusable for the buyer of a car to treat the product they've bought as a magic black box. It's inexcusable when a "mechanic" or "engineer" is incapable of doing anything but treating things like magic black boxes.

Scripting languages were for unwashed systems administrators, and no real programmer would touch them.

But all of the smarter people in my program knew two or more of them.

no real programmer would touch them. Functional programming was a weird little academic thing with no future. OO was "if it is a noun make it a class".

I worked for a company that had to fight against those prejudices and low levels of knowledge to sell licenses. We sold licenses to Fortune 500 companies so they could run billion dollar businesses on a "scripting language." You know what prepared my for working there? A generalist Comp Sci education!

20 years later, I literally haven't run a compiler in years. I use libraries for data structures. I don't need to worry about allocating memory, billion dollar industries run on scripting languages.

But you are a savvy user of those libraries because you have the background knowledge. You don't usually need to worry about allocating memory, but you know what the gotchas in extreme corner cases are. And if you had to have a custom library written in C++ for your dynamic language application, you'd know how to spec that out and hire for that while looking out for the details. I had at least a foggy idea past the buzzword level when I graduated. How about the kids who are graduating nowadays?

I got my CS degree in 98

In 98 I was in grad school.

You can only do so much in 4 years. What was "generalist" 20 years ago is "specialist" today, and it should be.

Here is what I see in way too many recent grads with a 3.75 GPA. They don't know any of the background, past a handwavy level. They have misconceptions that are outright wrong. Many of them seem to spend 4-5 years doing nothing but using libraries and gluing stuff together. Hell, we learned that stuff too -- but we learned a bunch of other stuff at the same time, plus we learned what we didn't know and what to do about it. Then again, there was a contingent who only cared about learning X-Windows, because there were lots of coding jobs in X-Windows. Aren't the people who only learn particular technologies that are in the job market the moral equivalent?

Comp Sci is dumbing down to the level of consumers of magic tech. I know engineers and physicists who would have some idea of how to begin to recreate the tech they use if civilization would fall. I think a lot of Comp Sci graduates, if they wound up with nothing but machines running machine code, would qualify for Golgafrinchan Ark Fleet Ship B.

[justwalt]

What kinds of mistakes would someone who fits this description make?

[jacobsenscott]

Deeply nested if/else logic, very long functions. Imperative logic that could be better written by higher level constructs like function composition, complicating code with micro-performance hacks, etc. In general inflexible code.

Of course not all of this is because I leaned C first. A lot of it was simply due to being a new programmer. But this kind of code is more prevalent in general in the C world. Just browse some opensource C projects.

I believe a lot of this stems from the "systems programming" mindset that goes along with learning C and C++. The requirements are very precise and well known, and don't change often. There is often a fairly precise "right answer" for how to do something where the "right answer" is some combination of performance metrics. Compilers are like that, file systems are like that, tcp/ip stacks are like that, etc. The programming boundaries tend to be very bright.

The "systems programming" mindset is a liability when writing business apps where a sales person can blow up every assumption and design decision and boundry in one day. The "right answer" is not clear, and not easily measured. The "right answer" has more to do with writing code that is flexible and easy to change. That is hard to measure and a totally different way of thinking.

[stcredzero]

But what you are citing here isn't a problem with learning C and C++. It's a failing of a generalist education. You might have known enough to avoid the gotchas of concurrency, but just out of school, you didn't know what you didn't know about business application development.

[askl56]

> Since when has our "field" become so flubby that we're now eschewing the notion of background knowledge?

I think the issue is more that the skillset follows the money. If you are a top web developer who can work in adtech/fintech/e-commerce and contract then you will make far more money doing that than you ever would in pure systems engineering. It's not so much that background knowledge is fluff, moreso that their focus is probably a lot more scattered than it used to be, and their background knowledge is perhaps in other places.

[lsc]

>Programmers who can write their own compiler are much better C and C++ programmers, because they have relevant background.

Sure, sure. But how many companies care about that sort of thing? C is rather my best language, and as far as I can tell, that helps me out as a sysadmin, but I need to be good at some EMCAscript based framework if I want a higher-paying Software Engineering job, at least outside of the embedded space (and I'm not that good at C. Also, most of the embedded types I know don't get paid SWE level salaries.)

[cobookman]

In school I had to make my own assembler & emulator in C. I learned more about Software Engineering doing that than any other assignment.

I'd also mention I've never had to write an Assembler or Emulator in my work nor have the majority of my peers have had to do that.

[stcredzero]

> but I need to be good at some EMCAscript based framework if I want a higher-paying Software Engineering job

Then I should hope you know enough VM-fu to be able to optimize a JavaScript application.

[Kiro]

You are completely wrong. The stuff you're talking about is completely irrelevant for 90% of the jobs. Step out of your bubble.