Comment by otakucode | Hacker News Reader

Comment by otakucode | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I went to a smallish private university and in the first year, there were about 50 people who intended to go for a CS degree. By year 2, there were about a dozen left. Every single one that said 'I heard there were good jobs in it' was gone. CS and writing code is not like many different arenas in that if the homework takes you 8 hours to understand, then it takes you 8 hours to understand. If you don't understand it, it is an order of magnitude more difficult to 'wing it' or get 'partial credit' when there is absolute proof of your lack of understanding with non-compiling or non-functional code.

I studied CS and Philosophy. I could phone in a philosophy paper if I wanted. I could not phone in a linked list implementation. I know companies loathe the idea like no other, but software engineering is a skill that is difficult for most people to acquire and is likely to remain that way. Mostly it boils down to peoples understanding and value they place on logic. Anyone with a good grasp on, or even just a high value for logic, can learn to code. No one who sees logic as 'nitpicking' can learn to build systems that function predictably, reliably, and accomplish a defined goal.

Math has the concept of non-compiling code: a proof that is wrong. You get partial credit if you get early steps right, and more if latter steps are right.

The idea that code that doesn't compile is not worth partial credit is wrong in academics. In the real world the code needs to compile first, of course, then run. However if your professors cannot look at your code that doesn't compiler and decide how much partial it is worth there is a problem.

That said, getting code to compile is a trivial part of the problem.

> In the real world the code needs to compile first, of course, then run

This is not true in my experience as a professional. I write pseudocode all the time. Often the fastest way to evaluate architecture choices is to sketch out your architecture, sketch the consumers of your proposed API, and see what issues come up.

Making this kind of code compile is a waste of time. Reading code without the computer is a crucial skill.

Graders require compiling code because it's easier to grade.

I wish math compiled. It would be a hell of a lot easier to figure out if I did it properly. It doesn't seem feasible for most fields though.

I'm fairly certain that in my CS program, you could only get a passing grade with a compiling and partially working program.

75% of the grade was compiles and works, and the rest was style, readability, and performance.

If it didn't compile, you basically failed the assignment, if it didn't work you could get up to, but not more than a C, 75 out of 100.

How do you "decide how much partial it is worth" ?

Generally the task is not writing code, it is solving a specific problem and non-compiling code is a non-solution, not a partial one.

The same way as you would in every other type of education. If you know what you are doing, it is easy to see how close the student came to getting it right or if they were completely on the wrong track.

couldn't this open the path to approving programming courses without ever handing in compiling code?

What about pseudo code that has the "right logic" but will never compile?

What if I submit python code that works as a c file, should that count?

I passed a lot of my math and physics courses even though the majority of my proofs were incorrect in some way. I didn't get full credit, but I got enough to get some.

Funny, I also studied CS and philosophy and always though it an execellent combination, most people I talk to find it odd.

I agree. Turns out being able to understand, evaluate and communicate about multiple perspectives on abstract concepts is a generally useful skill.

I have English and CS majors, French and Philosophy minors. Always been into computers and always been a big reader. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Nothing to add but I did CS/Phil also. I think they complement each other nicely.

I think it's also why I have friends that did Philosophy before going to Law School. Despite what was said above, good philosophy papers do take some rigor of thought.

What do you work with in both? Language, or languages. Reasoning. Logic.

PG also did that. Maybe that's why he's so good at writing essays.

Same here. Philosophy and coding much later. All through my twenties Aristotle to Sartre, read every page twice and reduce to comprehensibility in context.

I think it depends on the individual and the class. With several philosophy classes I saw scores on weekly papers go from around 9/10 to around 5/10 if I tried to wing it and do it at the last minute.

similar story here. small private college, there were maybe 25 people tops in intro to Java (2nd class you would take) I TA'd a few times; and that's mainly because it fulfilled a lab science credit somehow. I graduated with 8 other CS majors. I had a few classes that were 1:1 with the professor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com