Is Necessary for all rails employee know computer knowledge?

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by Michel Thapa, May 20, 2008.

  1. Michel Thapa

    Michel Thapa Guest

    Hi all Is Necessary for all rails employee know computer knowledge?
    Because for last 2 week i am visiting rails department, there i show
    some employee dos not know how to open the system, my way of saying is
    necessary for all employee should know it.
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Michel Thapa, May 20, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Michel Thapa <> writes:

    > Hi all Is Necessary for all rails employee know computer knowledge?
    > Because for last 2 week i am visiting rails department, there i show
    > some employee dos not know how to open the system, my way of saying is
    > necessary for all employee should know it.


    It's not necessarily necessary for every rails programmer to know
    anything about computers, or computer science.

    Read:

    http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http:...ver&source=pagecreator&gsessionid=UAjfJNzLRMc

    --
    __Pascal Bourguignon__
     
    Pascal J. Bourguignon, May 20, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 2008/5/20 Michel Thapa <>:
    > Hi all Is Necessary for all rails employee know computer knowledge?
    > Because for last 2 week i am visiting rails department, there i show
    > some employee dos not know how to open the system, my way of saying is
    > necessary for all employee should know it.


    I am not sure what you mean by "how to open the system". Maybe it is
    more important to improve knowledge of English or Japanese so your
    colleagues can read the documentation.

    Kind regards

    robert

    --
    use.inject do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
     
    Robert Klemme, May 20, 2008
    #3
  4. On 20 May 2008, at 13:15, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
    > Michel Thapa <> writes:
    >> Hi all Is Necessary for all rails employee know computer knowledge?
    >> Because for last 2 week i am visiting rails department, there i show
    >> some employee dos not know how to open the system, my way of saying
    >> is
    >> necessary for all employee should know it.

    >
    > It's not necessarily necessary for every rails programmer to know
    > anything about computers, or computer science.
    >
    > Read:
    >
    > http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http:...ver&source=pagecreator&gsessionid=UAjfJNzLRMc


    It's a fascinating article, not least because I can see where both the
    author and the interviewee are coming from. Once you know a decent
    amount of computer science it's often difficult to take developers
    seriously who lack that background, but by doing so we miss the
    benefits that knowledge from other disciplines can offer in solving
    complex problems.

    I started out in physics and I've spent a fair amount of my
    professional career arguing with very capable CS experts over all
    kinds of problems which are elementary with my background but have
    them scuttling back to graph theory, and conversely I meet a lot of
    web developers who've come from a non-academic and despite being very
    good at their specialism have a complete lack of confidence about
    their abilities. So no, in my opinion a rails programmer doesn't have
    to be a whizz at computer science or even necessarily with computers -
    although what kind of masochist works all day with tools that they
    neither like or understand?

    On the other hand there are certain key abilities that any developer
    does need, and which I've found surprisingly lacking in many that I've
    worked with: a grasp of basic logic; ability to sequence and classify;
    a cool head when things aren't going well; intense curiosity.
    Unfortunately all of these are as likely to get you into trouble as
    they are to get your projects out the door...

    I must admit though that if I was dealing with a Rails team I would
    expect anyone who was a developer to know how to run up the
    application at least locally as that's a five minute google and falls
    under the 'intense curiosity' category ;)


    Ellie

    Eleanor McHugh
    Games With Brains
    http://slides.games-with-brains.net
    ----
    raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
     
    Eleanor McHugh, May 20, 2008
    #4
  5. Michel Thapa

    Todd Benson Guest

    On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Eleanor McHugh
    <> wrote:
    http://www.google.com/gwt/n?u=http:...ver&source=pagecreator&gsessionid=UAjfJNzLRMc
    >
    > It's a fascinating article, not least because I can see where both the
    > author and the interviewee are coming from. Once you know a decent amount of
    > computer science it's often difficult to take developers seriously who lack
    > that background, but by doing so we miss the benefits that knowledge from
    > other disciplines can offer in solving complex problems.
    >
    > I started out in physics and I've spent a fair amount of my professional
    > career arguing with very capable CS experts over all kinds of problems which
    > are elementary with my background but have them scuttling back to graph
    > theory, and conversely I meet a lot of web developers who've come from a
    > non-academic and despite being very good at their specialism have a complete
    > lack of confidence about their abilities. So no, in my opinion a rails
    > programmer doesn't have to be a whizz at computer science or even
    > necessarily with computers - although what kind of masochist works all day
    > with tools that they neither like or understand?
    >
    > On the other hand there are certain key abilities that any developer does
    > need, and which I've found surprisingly lacking in many that I've worked
    > with: a grasp of basic logic; ability to sequence and classify; a cool head
    > when things aren't going well; intense curiosity. Unfortunately all of these
    > are as likely to get you into trouble as they are to get your projects out
    > the door...
    >
    > I must admit though that if I was dealing with a Rails team I would expect
    > anyone who was a developer to know how to run up the application at least
    > locally as that's a five minute google and falls under the 'intense
    > curiosity' category ;)
    >
    >
    > Ellie


    You left out philosophical differences, which is where the rubber
    meets the road at times. Everything you said makes sense, though.
    I've been waiting to do a monologue about that, but realized that I'm
    not eloquent enough, and also chickened out a bit :)

    Here's hiring criteria for me:

    I throw a framework (or, language) at the person, let them play, and
    let them show me something in a day or two (length of time depends on
    frame/lang); bonus points for seeing something that I haven't.

    Credentials mean almost nothing to me. If you can write a book,
    great, but don't try to tell me at the same time you know how to solve
    problems. The two things are "almost" orthogonal.

    Todd
     
    Todd Benson, May 20, 2008
    #5
  6. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Eleanor McHugh wrote:

    |
    | It's a fascinating article, not least because I can see where both the
    | author and the interviewee are coming from. Once you know a decent
    | amount of computer science it's often difficult to take developers
    | seriously who lack that background, but by doing so we miss the benefits
    | that knowledge from other disciplines can offer in solving complex
    | problems.

    The largest benefit is derived from attacking the same problem from
    different angles, which gives more options and a better understanding of
    the problem space.

    Discounting someone because they don't know the Big-O notation by heart
    can be as dangerous as hiring somebody who knows only algorithms.

    | I started out in physics and I've spent a fair amount of my professional
    | career arguing with very capable CS experts over all kinds of problems
    | which are elementary with my background but have them scuttling back to
    | graph theory, and conversely I meet a lot of web developers who've come
    | from a non-academic and despite being very good at their specialism have
    | a complete lack of confidence about their abilities.

    Well, if next to all advice is 'you have to know Big-O notation, and
    half the *-tree algorithms so that I would even consider reading your
    resume', a lack of confidence does emerge.

    I know, I am there, and finding the courage to apply for a job, or going
    independent is an exercise in itself.

    | So no, in my
    | opinion a rails programmer doesn't have to be a whizz at computer
    | science or even necessarily with computers - although what kind of
    | masochist works all day with tools that they neither like or understand?

    Programmers, as opposed to developers. A programmer sees software
    development as a means to a paycheck end. Developers see software as a
    means in itself, with the paycheck being a bonus. ;)

    I am, of course, painting with a broad brush here..

    | On the other hand there are certain key abilities that any developer
    | does need, and which I've found surprisingly lacking in many that I've
    | worked with: a grasp of basic logic; ability to sequence and classify; a
    | cool head when things aren't going well; intense curiosity.

    Well, what is basic logic? The boolean logic found in computer
    languages? Abstract logic? Aristotelian logic? ;)

    I guess you mean both boolean as well as abstract logic, as those go
    hand in hand (pretty much). And yes, both are quite important areas of
    knowledge.

    Since computers are only good at distinguishing 0's and 1's, knowing how
    logic works helps in understanding program flow, and programming in it self.

    It also enables to look at systems programming, and even peek into chip
    design (with AND, OR, XOR, NAND gates....).

    Which all helps in staying sharp (and learning that, in the end, the
    language matters less than the ability to think one's way out of a paper
    bag :p).

    Interestingly, the 'intense curiosity' is something that is seen as a
    key element by a lot of high profile developers, which I noticed while
    reading Ed Burn's 'Secrets of the Rock Star Programmers: Riding the IT
    Crest'[0]. From James Gosling, to Dave Thomas (not the Programming Ruby
    one :p), to Andy Hunt, to the Java Posse, curiosity is seen as pretty
    much elementary.


    | I must admit though that if I was dealing with a Rails team I would
    | expect anyone who was a developer to know how to run up the application
    | at least locally as that's a five minute google and falls under the
    | 'intense curiosity' category ;)

    Well, I'd like to see knowledge about deployment options, too. Not just
    'mod_rails', or 'apache reverse proxy with mongrel pack'.

    Though, similar should be expected by non-Rails developers: Available
    options, and their pros and cons in situations (at least in a
    superficial way that enables deeper research).

    [0]
    <http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Rock-Star-Programmers-Riding/dp/0071490833/>


    - --
    Phillip Gawlowski
    Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
    Blog: http://justarubyist.blogspot.com

    ~ "That's the problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists
    trying
    to describe things of unimaginable wonder." -Calvin
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAkgy9MEACgkQbtAgaoJTgL/BCQCeKxFZig02+3RI7wqmdK2IpABT
    TIkAnjtOuZm2kOfjt1WowJIlr+7fZyB8
    =WkqA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Phillip Gawlowski, May 20, 2008
    #6
  7. On 20 May 2008, at 16:56, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
    > Eleanor McHugh wrote:
    > | I started out in physics and I've spent a fair amount of my
    > professional
    > | career arguing with very capable CS experts over all kinds of
    > problems
    > | which are elementary with my background but have them scuttling
    > back to
    > | graph theory, and conversely I meet a lot of web developers who've
    > come
    > | from a non-academic and despite being very good at their
    > specialism have
    > | a complete lack of confidence about their abilities.
    >
    > Well, if next to all advice is 'you have to know Big-O notation, and
    > half the *-tree algorithms so that I would even consider reading your
    > resume', a lack of confidence does emerge.
    >
    > I know, I am there, and finding the courage to apply for a job, or
    > going
    > independent is an exercise in itself.


    You're not alone. I've ranted several times on my livejournal about
    the frustrations of job hunting and I'm effectively unemployable right
    now thanks to my left-field outlook. Mind you business here in the UK
    has always had an ambivalent attitude to creative thinking: they all
    claim to want it, but they none of them like dealing with it in the
    raw lol

    > | On the other hand there are certain key abilities that any developer
    > | does need, and which I've found surprisingly lacking in many that
    > I've
    > | worked with: a grasp of basic logic; ability to sequence and
    > classify; a
    > | cool head when things aren't going well; intense curiosity.
    >
    > Well, what is basic logic? The boolean logic found in computer
    > languages? Abstract logic? Aristotelian logic? ;)
    >
    > I guess you mean both boolean as well as abstract logic, as those go
    > hand in hand (pretty much). And yes, both are quite important areas of
    > knowledge.


    Even Aristotelian logic would be a step forward on some of the code
    I've read over the years!
    I've probably posted this link before (http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf
    ) which is a paper demonstrating one of the unspoken problems of the
    development world - that a noticeable minority of graduates with CS
    degrees are fundamentally incapable of programming. I could speculate
    that these will mostly go into the management side of the industry,
    but I'll leave that to Dilbert strips.

    > Since computers are only good at distinguishing 0's and 1's, knowing
    > how
    > logic works helps in understanding program flow, and programming in
    > it self.
    >
    > It also enables to look at systems programming, and even peek into
    > chip
    > design (with AND, OR, XOR, NAND gates....).
    >
    > Which all helps in staying sharp (and learning that, in the end, the
    > language matters less than the ability to think one's way out of a
    > paper
    > bag :p).


    Even when I was coding for the bare metal I always preferred to solve
    problems in my head first and then worry about assembly language and
    bit-strings later. I never came up with a solution that couldn't be
    coded, but I often came up with code that I would never have devised
    if I'd put implementation concerns foremost.

    > Interestingly, the 'intense curiosity' is something that is seen as a
    > key element by a lot of high profile developers, which I noticed while
    > reading Ed Burn's 'Secrets of the Rock Star Programmers: Riding the IT
    > Crest'[0]. From James Gosling, to Dave Thomas (not the Programming
    > Ruby
    > one :p), to Andy Hunt, to the Java Posse, curiosity is seen as pretty
    > much elementary.


    Alas it's the main thing that formal education tries to knock out of
    us at an early age, but I don't know any hacker worth their salt who
    doesn't possess it.

    Curiosity is what teaches us new tricks without there being an
    immediate pay-off, and its from exploring problem spaces in that
    lurching haphazard manner that we learn general principles which can
    be applied to cast a new light on otherwise intractable or ignored
    problems. It's the essence of hacking in all senses of the term (both
    good and bad) and the quickest path to grokking stuff. It's also a
    brilliant justification for procrastination.

    > | I must admit though that if I was dealing with a Rails team I would
    > | expect anyone who was a developer to know how to run up the
    > application
    > | at least locally as that's a five minute google and falls under the
    > | 'intense curiosity' category ;)
    >
    > Well, I'd like to see knowledge about deployment options, too. Not
    > just
    > 'mod_rails', or 'apache reverse proxy with mongrel pack'.
    >
    > Though, similar should be expected by non-Rails developers: Available
    > options, and their pros and cons in situations (at least in a
    > superficial way that enables deeper research).


    I couldn't agree more. When I meet a new team I want them to be as
    deeply shallow as possible: not experts in what I'm doing, but clearly
    willing and able to become experts as the project progresses without
    any pressure from me. Hopefully they'll even end up know more than I
    do, then I can steal knowledge from them ;)


    Ellie

    Eleanor McHugh
    Games With Brains
    http://slides.games-with-brains.net
    ----
    raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
     
    Eleanor McHugh, May 20, 2008
    #7
  8. On 20 May 2008, at 16:33, Todd Benson wrote:
    > You left out philosophical differences, which is where the rubber
    > meets the road at times. Everything you said makes sense, though.
    > I've been waiting to do a monologue about that, but realized that I'm
    > not eloquent enough, and also chickened out a bit :)


    I normally wait until I'm particularly ticked off and then rant on
    LiveJournal, where nobody's likely to be reading.

    > Here's hiring criteria for me:
    >
    > I throw a framework (or, language) at the person, let them play, and
    > let them show me something in a day or two (length of time depends on
    > frame/lang); bonus points for seeing something that I haven't.


    I get them to explain their three worst projects and how their
    contributions screwed them up. It's surprisingly informative. For one
    thing I've never met a hacker who didn't take pride in their follies
    so that instantly weeds out those in development for what I consider
    the wrong reasons (i.e. just for the paycheque). I also apply the
    boffin test, which is whether or not the person is engaging enough to
    want to discuss tech over beer on one of those slow afternoons when
    there's no work to be done.

    > Credentials mean almost nothing to me. If you can write a book,
    > great, but don't try to tell me at the same time you know how to solve
    > problems. The two things are "almost" orthogonal.


    I'd make allowances if the author wrote all the code in the book, and
    it solved some interesting and non-trivial problem: Andrew Tanenbaum
    for example would definitely get to the top of any shortlist for
    Minix. But that's not what most programming books are about.
    Especially not the Java books ;p


    Ellie

    Eleanor McHugh
    Games With Brains
    http://slides.games-with-brains.net
    ----
    raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
     
    Eleanor McHugh, May 20, 2008
    #8
  9. Michel Thapa

    Bill Kelly Guest

    From: "Eleanor McHugh" <>
    >
    > I get them to explain their three worst projects and how their
    > contributions screwed them up.


    Awesome :D


    I learned some powerful lessons on one of those 10 years ago...
    unfortunately, too late for the project.



    Regards,

    Bill
     
    Bill Kelly, May 20, 2008
    #9
  10. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Eleanor McHugh wrote:

    |
    | You're not alone. I've ranted several times on my livejournal about the
    | frustrations of job hunting and I'm effectively unemployable right now
    | thanks to my left-field outlook. Mind you business here in the UK has
    | always had an ambivalent attitude to creative thinking: they all claim
    | to want it, but they none of them like dealing with it in the raw lol

    Worst thing: I'm utterly self-taught, too. Everything I learned, I
    wanted to learn.

    ~From Ruby, to Rails, to CSS, to GTK, to good practices in UI design.
    Though, this shows me how little I actually know, and how much more I
    have to learn.

    Another difficulty is, to find worthwhile sources of information and
    knowledge. I've come to abhor search engines, as they are filled with
    cruft. Especially Google. But in the hunt fro bragging rights over the
    biggest index of websites, the usefulness of indexing knowledge gets
    handed to machines, and not editors.

    Wikipedia is plagued by the opposite: Too many people, creating content
    that is mediocre to down right bad, in addition to power games, rather
    than collecting actual knowledge (delete for something no being notable?
    WTF? Disk space is cheap nowadays!).

    Any way, the uphill battle I am facing is that I can't make my resume
    pass the buzzword bingo by machines. But I'm working on that.


    |
    | Even Aristotelian logic would be a step forward on some of the code I've
    | read over the years!
    | I've probably posted this link before
    | (http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/research/PhDArea/saeed/paper1.pdf) which is a
    | paper demonstrating one of the unspoken problems of the development
    | world - that a noticeable minority of graduates with CS degrees are
    | fundamentally incapable of programming. I could speculate that these
    | will mostly go into the management side of the industry, but I'll leave
    | that to Dilbert strips.

    Considering that I, at best an amateur, at worst a clueless newbie, have
    already read more technical books than the industry average..

    (And I'm living off of the goodwill of those who find my Amazon Wishlist
    and me books from there, too. Otherwise it'd be more!)

    | Even when I was coding for the bare metal I always preferred to solve
    | problems in my head first and then worry about assembly language and
    | bit-strings later. I never came up with a solution that couldn't be
    | coded, but I often came up with code that I would never have devised if
    | I'd put implementation concerns foremost.

    Yes, it is similar for me. While I am (for the moment) stuck in rather
    high-level languages like Java, .NET, or Ruby, I think through a
    problem, and come up with solutions. The emphasis being on 'solutions'.
    I weigh pro and cons of what I come up with, after some investigation
    and/or prototyping in the problem space, and after that, I can actually
    make decisions as to which solution to use *in this situation*.

    | Alas it's the main thing that formal education tries to knock out of us
    | at an early age, but I don't know any hacker worth their salt who
    | doesn't possess it.

    Full agreement on both counts.

    | Curiosity is what teaches us new tricks without there being an immediate
    | pay-off, and its from exploring problem spaces in that lurching
    | haphazard manner that we learn general principles which can be applied
    | to cast a new light on otherwise intractable or ignored problems. It's
    | the essence of hacking in all senses of the term (both good and bad) and
    | the quickest path to grokking stuff. It's also a brilliant justification
    | for procrastination.

    Well, curiosity brought me back to coding. It drives me to read up on
    networking (the social as well as the computer way :p), algorithms
    (Understanding what Big O notation was quite the 'Eureka!' moment for
    me), or GUI toolkits.

    Though, I am a practical learner, so for best effects I need to tinker
    with something for best effect.

    That allows me to build a tolerance towards frustration, too. ;)

    | I couldn't agree more. When I meet a new team I want them to be as
    | deeply shallow as possible: not experts in what I'm doing, but clearly
    | willing and able to become experts as the project progresses without any
    | pressure from me. Hopefully they'll even end up know more than I do,
    | then I can steal knowledge from them ;)

    Indeed. I try to learn something new with everything I do, and I'm not
    shy of sharing that knowledge (for example, a short series on RubyCAS
    and Ruby-OpenID on my blog).

    - --
    Phillip Gawlowski
    Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
    Blog: http://justarubyist.blogspot.com

    ~ - You know you've been hacking too long when...
    ...you think "grep keys /dev/pockets" or "grep homework /dev/backpack"
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAkgzG1YACgkQbtAgaoJTgL8FvACgphH908d6BSbOJmlU4QgBJh71
    BbkAn26GDkPrvHsUsOt6y61CgQlzXtsu
    =mkBm
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Phillip Gawlowski, May 20, 2008
    #10
  11. On 20 May 2008, at 18:45, Bill Kelly wrote:
    > From: "Eleanor McHugh" <>
    >>
    >> I get them to explain their three worst projects and how their
    >> contributions screwed them up.

    >
    > Awesome :D
    >
    >
    > I learned some powerful lessons on one of those 10 years ago...
    > unfortunately, too late for the project.


    That's always the way ;)


    Ellie

    Eleanor McHugh
    Games With Brains
    http://slides.games-with-brains.net
    ----
    raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
     
    Eleanor McHugh, May 20, 2008
    #11
  12. Eleanor McHugh wrote:
    > [...]
    > I started out in physics and I've spent a fair amount of my
    > professional career arguing with very capable CS experts over all
    > kinds of problems which are elementary with my background but have
    > them scuttling back to graph theory


    Could you elaborte here? It sounds interesting.

    > > http://[...]age-racecar-driver

    >
    > It's a fascinating article [...]


    Indeed. Usually I tuck away interesting articles in an "interesting, to
    read someday" folder, but this time I couldn't stop reading...
    --
    Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
     
    Albert Schlef, May 21, 2008
    #12
  13. On 21 May 2008, at 13:40, Albert Schlef wrote:
    > Eleanor McHugh wrote:
    >> [...]
    >> I started out in physics and I've spent a fair amount of my
    >> professional career arguing with very capable CS experts over all
    >> kinds of problems which are elementary with my background but have
    >> them scuttling back to graph theory

    >
    > Could you elaborte here? It sounds interesting.


    Not easily without getting sued for breaching various NDAs ;)

    Generally though there's a deep-seated belief in CS that because
    computers deal in defined states formal abstractions such as graph
    theory are the best way to tackle a number of often-intractable
    optimisation problems. For simple systems that's true, but as your
    state-space explodes you end up with solutions which are easily
    expressed elegantly in Lisp or whatever but which in practice are
    completely useless due to their processing requirements.

    Anyone who comes from a science or engineering background will
    recognise this as a granularity issue: a state-space has a level of
    granularity beneath which additional precision in differentiating data
    points becomes completely irrelevant in determining real-world
    behaviour. The classic example is the disconnect between classical and
    quantum mechanics, but it occurs in all experimental fields.

    Unfortunately many very good CS people still have a mathematician's
    bias towards a perfect answer rather than a working approximation and
    look to maths for their abstractions rather than seeking them in the
    real world and instead getting the granularity of their systems right.
    In my personal experience this then leads to long and involved
    discussions which go round and round in circles for months on end
    until projects get cancelled because the perfect answer is too costly
    to deploy, and the working approximation isn't provable for all cases.


    Ellie

    Eleanor McHugh
    Games With Brains
    http://slides.games-with-brains.net
    ----
    raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason
     
    Eleanor McHugh, May 21, 2008
    #13
  14. Michel Thapa

    Todd Benson Guest

    On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:34 AM, Eleanor McHugh
    <> wrote:
    > On 21 May 2008, at 13:40, Albert Schlef wrote:
    >>
    >> Eleanor McHugh wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [...]
    >>> I started out in physics and I've spent a fair amount of my
    >>> professional career arguing with very capable CS experts over all
    >>> kinds of problems which are elementary with my background but have
    >>> them scuttling back to graph theory

    >>
    >> Could you elaborte here? It sounds interesting.

    >
    > Not easily without getting sued for breaching various NDAs ;)
    >
    > Generally though there's a deep-seated belief in CS that because computers
    > deal in defined states formal abstractions such as graph theory are the best
    > way to tackle a number of often-intractable optimisation problems. For
    > simple systems that's true, but as your state-space explodes you end up with
    > solutions which are easily expressed elegantly in Lisp or whatever but which
    > in practice are completely useless due to their processing requirements.
    >
    > Anyone who comes from a science or engineering background will recognise
    > this as a granularity issue: a state-space has a level of granularity
    > beneath which additional precision in differentiating data points becomes
    > completely irrelevant in determining real-world behaviour. The classic
    > example is the disconnect between classical and quantum mechanics, but it
    > occurs in all experimental fields.
    >
    > Unfortunately many very good CS people still have a mathematician's bias
    > towards a perfect answer rather than a working approximation and look to
    > maths for their abstractions rather than seeking them in the real world and
    > instead getting the granularity of their systems right. In my personal
    > experience this then leads to long and involved discussions which go round
    > and round in circles for months on end until projects get cancelled because
    > the perfect answer is too costly to deploy, and the working approximation
    > isn't provable for all cases.
    >
    >
    > Ellie


    Albert, a good example of what Ellie is saying would be -- in the ME
    world -- like approximating a complex vibration with small
    oscillations of a spring (doesn't have to be a spring; i.e., it could
    be a very large 3-d pendulum with small movements). Once you do that,
    the real-world problem becomes incredibly easier than factoring in
    many parameters not required. In effect, you solve the problem
    ideologically before you brute-force attack it with a turing machine.
    Granularity.

    Todd
     
    Todd Benson, May 21, 2008
    #14
  15. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    Todd Benson wrote:

    | Albert, a good example of what Ellie is saying would be -- in the ME
    | world -- like approximating a complex vibration with small
    | oscillations of a spring (doesn't have to be a spring; i.e., it could
    | be a very large 3-d pendulum with small movements). Once you do that,
    | the real-world problem becomes incredibly easier than factoring in
    | many parameters not required. In effect, you solve the problem
    | ideologically before you brute-force attack it with a turing machine.
    | Granularity.

    'If you all you have is a scalpel, every problem looks like neurosurgery'?

    - --
    Phillip Gawlowski
    Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
    Blog: http://justarubyist.blogspot.com

    "Need" now means wanting someone else's money.
    "Greed" means wanting to keep your own.
    "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.
    - - Joseph Sobran
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

    iEYEARECAAYFAkg0cGIACgkQbtAgaoJTgL+GnQCfbsqqT/d+dDTIr5RUCpVyulLG
    7DsAnj4j6FBbmHO+5Edq+rZpCNxsJdv6
    =wXMW
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Phillip Gawlowski, May 21, 2008
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Shun
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    3,074
    Jon Paal
    Jul 13, 2006
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    311
  3. Paulo

    Employee TimeSheet/Projects

    Paulo, Jun 16, 2009, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    954
    Gregory A. Beamer
    Jun 16, 2009
  4. Chris
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    713
    shusta guthnar
    Mar 26, 2010
  5. Andries

    I know, I know, I don't know

    Andries, Apr 23, 2004, in forum: Perl Misc
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    281
    Gregory Toomey
    Apr 23, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page