|
|
|
|
|
|
by creshal
667 days ago
|
|
|
Mostly because we are an immensely ignorant industry jealously guarding what little scraps of knowledge we gleam. Theoretical computer science results get ignored for decades, until people like Carmack randomly sit down and read a book. (The rest of the world then gets to read about it years later in a biography, and it's still revolutionary since nobosy else sat down to read a book in the meantime.) A lot of institutions know how to write efficient, safe software, but at best will talk about it in a blog post, their experience will never filter down into classes to teach the next generation. And because that's not bad enough, we try to suffocate every possible problem with "more headcount", since that's easier than actually figuring out what your core problem is. |
|
|
That's not to say the average programmer is a dunce. The opposite. It's simply that science and theorems are part of scientific discourse. They are usually not complete proofs and come with nuanced caveats and limitations.
It takes someone with scientific training and discipline to take that, and turn it into a feature for some IT product.
Not your average programmer. I don't think it's realistic at all to expect the IT industry at large to do these things.
That's what industry- and field- standards bodies used to do. They provided guidance and examples in that can be applied by the average programmer. These used to be sponsored by companies in their respective fields. But these days the focus is more on open source. Which has its own advantages and disadvantages.