Myths about programming are interesting, including the fact that sometimes they are distributed by programmers themselves. In addition, sometimes they still believe in them. Even the level of qualification is not a panacea for this belief - it only lowers the likelihood that it really will be. So do not be surprised if you hear some of the myths cited here from a programmer or a web-developer.
Of course, understanding mathematics is a very useful thing. It is actively used by the vast majority of sciences, and all other sciences also use it, but a little less actively. Mathematics is also one of the best ways to train abstract thinking, to understand and to learn how to solve problems. However, the irony is that programming is not so much a science as engineering activity. Moreover, although the result of this activity looks very similar to all sorts of complex textbooks, Mathematics is used in it to a much lesser degree than, for example, in physics or astronomy.
In the most general case, the programmer will need only the elementary program of the junior school - four arithmetic operations. The bulk of valuable scientific information falls into programming from another science - formal logic. However, some extra-deep depths are not necessary here as well. Programming is a special area of knowledge. It is quite strongly isolated from other sciences, although it prompted some of them (for example, mathematics and logic).
The fact is that programmers are engaged in the search for unambiguously interpreted descriptions of the actions that the computer must perform. In addition, not only unambiguously interpreted, but also complete - because a computer, unlike a person, can not "figure out" the missed.
However, the desire to simplify the descriptions and generalize them will certainly be met. Therefore, the scientific component of programming is 99% devoted to how to build the presentation so that it is as short as possible, understandable and unmistakable. Well, it's also desirable that it works as soon as possible.
This myth is in some ways the opposite to the previous one, so it may seem that at least one of these statements simply must be true. However, no, they are both wrong.
The fact is that only a small part of the programs is devoted exclusively to the same programs, and therefore does not require any additional knowledge. The rest of the programs are needed to solve some problem from the outside world, which inevitably requires an understanding of the context of this problem.
Therefore, the programmer usually has to deal with the subject area himself before writing the program. Of course, a programmer does not have to be able to draw like an artist, and understand physics as a physicist, but he will inevitably have to master the basics and even some of the more complicated things from these areas - otherwise he will not be able to program all of this.
This myth is especially popular among novice programmers. They think that they still know little, but somewhere there are "real programmers" who know all the technologies and are able to do everything related to programming, or even everything connected with computers.
However, even from the analysis of the previous myth, it should be clear that it is simple impossible: the programmer is really forced to deal with the subject area, but this procedure takes time, so he simply can not deal with all the areas at the same time. It would be strange to expect from the scientist that he will understand the ten of the loosely connected scientific fields at the level of the academician of each of them. And yes, it should be understood that a programmer, a system administrator and a computer assembler are three different professions. Besides them, there are hundreds of others, also closely related to computers.
Well, to claim that they all the same will also be wrong. However, the difference is often really not very noticeable. And it makes sense to consider not even one difference, but two: the difference in the logic of the device and in the syntax.
Programming languages are all different Well, to claim that they all the same will also be wrong. However, the difference is often really not very noticeable. And it makes sense to consider not even one difference, but two: the difference in the logic of the device and in the syntax.
This may seem strange: why to invent new languages that differ only in the way they are written? However, everything happens a little differently. Basically, not methods of recording are invented, but the logic of the device. More precisely, not entirely, but rather additions to the logic of the previous languages.
However, additions that turned out to be successful, after a while, spread out in general in all languages. You may have heard terms such as "object-oriented programming" or "functional programming". So, although it might seem to you that we are talking about some particular area, in practice, both things are almost everywhere.
Sometimes this thesis is softened, clarifying that it is not just a "programmer", but a "good" or "real" programmer. It is the truth that with such an amendment it would be better to conclude that if it is so, then good and real programmers came to an end in the sixties - when the programs were 100 lines long, and the computer time was so scarce that the programs were written on paper and debugged in the mind .
Now most programmers more or less understand how only a small part of the program works, in the development of which they took part. However, this is not a consequence of the fall of all the foundations and decay of the industry, but, on the contrary, a consequence of the enormous and rapid progress that has caused the avalanche-like growth of the amount of knowledge in this field.
Complicating processes and multiplying our knowledge about them inevitably leads to a division of labor, and programming is not an exception. When the whole program takes a hundred lines and it all comes down to some single and almost linear process, and the range of problems solved with the help of program lies in one relatively narrow area, it is really possible to thoroughly understand all the details. However, with programs containing millions of lines, performing thousands of different but related actions, it is technically impossible to know everything.
For this reason, each programmer independently creates only a small part of the code - even if he works alone. All the rest has been done by other people - written operating systems, device drivers, libraries and the programming language itself, using which the programmer writes. As a result, each developer is forced to trust the promises of other programmers: that the part of the program written by them is really working, and that it does exactly what is stated, and that if there is an error there, they will fix it. He is forced to read brief instructions on the use of someone else's code and follow them without understanding its internal structure. That is, doing exactly the same thing as the users of its program, who work in it, as a rule, not even imagining how it is written.
The programmer is forced to deal with the subject area: to understand it, but not necessarily at the level of the academician. The same happens with the external code that it uses as the part of its program. You need to understand the "main idea", "approach", "principle of use", but not all the details.
About the author: If you do not know what to start your essay with, you are welcome to read posts written by Melisa Marzett for Big Essay Writer and find fresh ideas on professional writing.
Copyright © 2018 SmallerSEO.Tools - Free Web Tools & Small SEO Tools . All rights reserved.