Hacker News Reader

Comment by slededit | Hacker News Reader

The Big Bang Theory is an insulting characture. While some developers may like it - it's not really best way to endear yourself to a group of people.

View on HN

I was thinking the same thing. I don't think you'd score points in the office relating to engineers with a "Hey I watch Big Bang Theory!".

blank stares

I once had an HR team give a talk to a bunch of engineers. They opened up with "Who watched Judging Amy last night?"

It did not go well after that, in fact it was a horrific couple days of "training" where everything went wrong communication wise, for a lot of reasons ... one dude effectively ended his time at the company on one of the first days when he got into an argument with HR. (Granted that wasn't Judging Amy's fault).

I have to say though, Judging Amy was such a solid 2000's drama.

It may have been, but nobody in that room knew it, other than the HR folks presenting ... ;)

I pity the people who judge scientists and engineers by watching TBBT (and there are many of them). Only watched the pilot and could barely force myself to finish it. It was extremely cringe-worthy.

What annoys me most about that show is that 3 physicists and a mechanical engineer are often shown writing working software. That's rarely the case.

You have watched it enough to get annoyed by it? I saw part of an episode once, and I thought it was a program for children.

...what? I mean, maybe some theoretical physicists spend all day doing maths and not simulating it, but almost all the physicists I know spend large amounts of time writing software; anything experimental or observational tends to produce large volumes of data with extremely bespoke analysis, and anything non-experimental probably involves lots of simulations.

People usually have a shock when they start their PhD and find they have to learn to program, fast.

Physicists and Mechanical engineers, often do write software.

So do a whole host of other people.

I think the key word here is _working_ software...

You don't need to be an expert to write working software. You don't even need to be an expert to write good software - you do need to be knowledgeable in that field to write maintainable software, but even experts in the field often write bad software in the name of expedience.

Yes it was more a joke about the terrible quality of code produced by physics. Obviously they write stuff that works for some bizarre value of 'works'. Of course this being HN everyone took it super seriously ;)

I once had to untangle a hairball of stuff made by someone with enough titles that his last name tended to fall off the line or be clipped. Having a degree in physics or mechanical engineering does not automatically make you a (good) programmer.

Dijkstra would have had a fit.

It was interesting software (finite element analysis) but until it was just about completely rewritten absolutely un-maintainable. Which was a bit of a problem because it was also buggy.

> I once had to untangle a hairball of stuff made by someone with enough titles that his last name tended to fall off the line or be clipped.

In my experience, the problem rather is that in science, the intention of the code is to be able to run well enough such that one or two papers can be made out of it and after that, it may be forgotten.

For this purpose, this kind of coding is actually decent and (unluckily) investing time in good software engineering practises would mean that you have less time for writing papers.

In this sense, I would be cautious to call this kind of code "bad", but rather say that if you write code for a company, the priorities are very different.

That code was old rather than bad. And I had the distinct feeling that whoever wrote it simply did not have a lot of background in software and had a job to be done no matter how it got done. And then that code started a life of its own because the software did work most of the time. Edge cases (sometimes literally edge cases: edges of networks of steel trusses) would sometimes give the weirdest results and upon closer inspection you'd find lots of errors in the rest of the output, just not large enough to immediately cause suspicion.

In the end it all worked out and it was a very good lesson in trying to keep the output stable while refactoring the code. This was well before 'TDD'.

My argument is that it doesn't automatically make you a bad programmer either - you do need to be knowledgeable in that field to write maintainable software, but even experts in the field often write bad software in the name of expedience.

Counter point, most great programmers I know are physicists turned programmers. Although they made the full switch and it wasn't to support their research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com