= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DaFranker comments on Programming Thread - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (64)
This struck me as slightly odd.
In my experience, people who do not have at least a decent grasp of the concepts involved in programming will not even be able to imagine the kinds of problems that are not reasonable to solve. They will, on occasion, think up things that they believe is "simple", but would in practice require the equivalent of a whole Google department working on it for years before it can get done. If that's what you meant by knowing what problems are reasonable to solve, then that's fine.
However, even such large, Google-scaled projects could still present a good way to motivate yourself and start looking up and learning stuff about coding.
I'm pretty sure we exactly agree on this. Just out of curiosity, what did you think I meant?
I believe I went with the wrong interpretation of "solve". I read it as something much more open, in the sense of "figuring out the problem's key elements", which would mean "needing to solve" google-scale projects and then them being "reasonable to solve" is equivalent to doing the research and experimentation required to figure out all the important structural elements of the problem, and what kind of team exactly would be working on which problems in order to implement the full solution.
If I interpret "solve" as in "fully functional" (coded, runs, performs the desired operation without bugging for the standard test cases), then what you said and what I said reduce to approximately the same thing.