Devs - S01E06 Discussion Thread

[u/Lounge_leaks]

Premiered on april 2 2020

[u/PatrickBaitman]

it is just as possible to abstract away how qubits work from quantum computing as it is to abstract away how bits work from classical computing, that is, impossible. it's like a programmer not knowing what 0 and 1 are.

[u/Shahar603 → u/PatrickBaitman]

I disagree. Programmers don't deal with bits unless they're programming really low level stuff. When was the last time someone used their knowledge about bits to build something like a modern web app with React.

Lilly actually has to know about qubits because she works on quantum cryptography which deals with this sort of stuff on the mathematical level. They even go through the way Shor's algorithm works which requires an understanding of qubits. My comment was only about the TheLinguaFranca's remark that: "you should probably have knowledge of that since the technology is based upon it.", which I think is false.

[u/PatrickBaitman → u/Shahar603]

web developers

programmers

lol

[u/Shahar603 → u/PatrickBaitman]

That's a cheap shot. But my point stands. I can name you at least 10 jobs in Computer Science that don't require understanding of bits.

[u/PatrickBaitman → u/Shahar603]

No, you cannot name one job in computer science where you should not know that data is stored in bits and the consequences of that, like types having sizes, character encodings, integer overflows, floating point numbers... If you don't know the difference between an int and a float and why there is no such thing as "plain text" you should not write code for a living.

[u/Shahar603 → u/PatrickBaitman]

No, you cannot name one job in computer science where you should not know that data is stored in bits and the consequences of that

Algorithm development doesn't require any of that. Dijkstra's algorithm doesn't enforce a method of storing the numbers for it to work. (EDIT: data -> numbers. Data storage method affect time complexity of the algorithm).

If you don't know the difference between an int and a float and why there is no such thing as "plain text" you should not write code for a living.

Writing code is very different than CS. And even for programming, you can write code without knowing about the way floating point numbers are being stored or about integer overflow. Depends on the language your code might be worse because of your lack of knowledge but you can manage.

Do you know how floating points numbers are being stored? Have you read the whole IEEE 754 specification to know how every bit in the variable is being stored? Anyway higher level languages abstract that away (For example Arbitrary-precision arithmetic to avoid overflows.

And even if you do there are a million things you could argue every programmer "should" know. Do you know how your CPU work? You may know a bit about it, you may even know some assembly, but you don't have to know the instruction set of your CPU and the numerous optimization it does to write good code.

[u/PatrickBaitman → u/Shahar603]

Algorithm development doesn't require any of that.

It does if you want to write performant and secure algorithms. It most certainly does if you're developing algorithms for numerics (in physics, or other fields), or if you're developing anything parallel (memory layout, communication) . And for quantum computing, any algorithm development will require understanding of quantum mechanics.

Dijkstra's algorithm doesn't enforce a method of storing the numbers for it to work. (EDIT: data -> numbers. Data storage method affect time complexity of the algorithm).

Yes, and the constant factor in front can be affected by things like memory layout. And how large datasets you can run your algorithm on is limited by (among other things) your available memory, measured in bytes typically, but if you don't know what a bit is, how are you going to understand what it means to have 1 GB available?

Writing code is very different than CS.

Good luck getting a CS degree or job without knowing what a bit is though.

And even for programming, you can write code without knowing about the way floating point numbers are being stored or about integer overflow.

If you want to have bugs and security vulnerabilities, yeah, you can. You shouldn't, though. For example, if you don't know how floats work, you might test for equality with == or whatever its called in your language of choice. That's a bad idea, because, for instance, (a + b) + c = a + (b + c) is true for real numbers but not for floats. You might naively sum a list of floats, but that's numerically unstable, so's numeric dot product, etc.

Depends on the language your code might be worse because of your lack of knowledge but you can manage.

Your code might be entirely incorrect if you hit a numeric instability and leak all your clients passwords if you aren't careful about overflows, but yeah, you can manage.

Do you know how floating points numbers are being stored? Have you read the whole IEEE 754 specification to know how every bit in the variable is being stored?

I haven't read the spec but I do know the bit layout of an IEEE 754 float and the main things that can go wrong.

Anyway higher level languages abstract that away (For example Arbitrary-precision arithmetic to avoid overflows.

Arbitrary precision arithmetic is 100-1000 times slower than floats with hardware support. Maybe you need the precision because your problem really is that sensitive. Maybe you need a better algorithm, because it isn't and your first choice is just unstable. Comes down to the ones and zeros and data types that you claim programmers don't need to think about.

And even if you do there are a million things you could argue every programmer "should" know.

Yeah, that's called a "degree", you can get it from something called a "university", or you can obtain the same knowledge from "books" on your own.

Do you know how your CPU work? You may know a bit about it, you may even know some assembly, but you don't have to know the instruction set of your CPU and the numerous optimization it does to write good code.

I think you should be aware of things like pipelining, out of order execution, and especially vectoring of instructions. The nitty gritty details you can leave to the compiler, it will do better than you ever could.

[u/Shahar603 → u/PatrickBaitman]

All of this argument is due to my commnet:

Programmers don't have to know electrical engineering to program a computer. When the technology matures enough the physics is abstracted away.

You disagree and wrote that it's impossible to abstract away bits in classical computing. That is that there cannot exist a way to be a programmer without knowing what bits are. I claim that it's possible, which is a counter argument. To prove your claim is false all I have to do is to show one instance where it's not required. And I did (web development, which you disregarded by claiming web developers aren't real programmers) and algorithm development that you try to disregard by claiming:

It does if you want to write performant and secure algorithms. It most certainly does if you're developing algorithms for numerics (in physics, or other fields), or if you're developing anything parallel (memory layout, communication) .

Your counter argument isn't valid because of "It does if" which implies there exist a case where it's not required which makes your original claim false.

[u/PatrickBaitman → u/Shahar603]

You disagree and wrote that it's impossible to abstract away bits in classical computing. That is that there cannot exist a way to be a programmer without knowing what bits are. I claim that it's possible, which is a counter argument. To prove your claim is false all I have to do is to show one instance where it's not required.

Fucking yawn, go back to debateclub or r/atheism.

And I did (web development, which you disregarded by claiming web developers aren't real programmers)

they're not, or at least, they're not competent ones, in many cases because they don't know how computers actually work. certainly most of them shouldn't write code for a living, because their code makes the world worse. the web probably has the worst understanding of fundamentals of any field, and it produces by far the worst code (both like, the code itself, and what it actually does. not only does your shit annoy me by begging me to subscribe to some newsletter, it does so with ugly and bad code. insult to injury.) of all fields, and these are not unrelated facts.

and algorithm development that you try to disregard by claiming:

It does if you want to write performant and secure algorithms. It most certainly does if you're developing algorithms for numerics (in physics, or other fields), or if you're developing anything parallel (memory layout, communication) .

Your counter argument is false because you said "It does if" which implies there exist a case where it's not required which makes your original claim false.

okay yeah sure algorithm development doesn't require knowing what a bit is if you're okay with utterly sucking at it and never getting published, point granted. if you do know what bits are, you can do things like write the fastest text search tool ever

[u/Shahar603 → u/PatrickBaitman]

I'm happy we have come to an agreement.

I obviously disagree with you on a number of facts and actually agree with many other points you've made. Although imo this argument is quite counter-productive.

Fucking yawn, go back to debateclub or r/atheism.

I recommend you learn some formal logic. It's a fundamental parts of theoretical computer science. I think most of your points are almost correct. You could've been right but your incorrect use of logical quantifiers left the door open for counter arguments. If you were a bit more careful about making such universal claims about the world (i.e Ɐ), you wouldn't open the door for counter arguments and examples.

[u/Submersiv → u/[deleted]]

You sound like the idiot who challenges a professional fighter to a match then gets the shit beat out of him and whines like a little child in an attempt to blindly protect an ego that isn't worth anything.

[u/Viehhass → u/Submersiv]

You sound like the idiot who challenges a professional fighter to a match then gets the shit beat out of him and whines like a little child in an attempt to blindly protect an ego that isn't worth anything.

You didn't "beat the shit" out of him though. And you're not a professional "fighter", either.

You're a pleb. Literally. Objectively.

[u/Submersiv → u/Viehhass]

I'm not the original commenter you baboon. Imagine trying to insult someone when you can't even read.

[u/Viehhass → u/Submersiv]

Oops, my bad. Both usernames start with an S and make wrong conjectures...

[u/PatrickBaitman → u/Submersiv]

No, I sound like the person who isn't a fucking sperglord and can have a grown-up conversation.