saquille

LMAO this got me laughing so hard!

"honey it's time to go to bed" "dammit mom I'm waiting on a query from my squirrel this is important!" ".....okay honey, if you say so"

Finally found a reasonable controversial opinion after so many stupid controversial opinions. You got it. Keep up the great work

Well, sometimes we pronounce it as Circle :D

The guy taking the interview doesn't have the skills to test you for the job 😁

This is my opinion after almost 20 years as a professional software engineer: you can’t know if you want to work with someone until you’ve actually worked with them. Technical skills, soft skills, and research skills are all equally important, but modern interviews don’t really test for those things. Instead they typically only test your ability to solve a logic puzzle under severe time pressure while someone who already knows the answer is judging you and failure means the loss of a literally life changing opportunity. That kind of pressure, and the kinds of puzzles presented are… atypical, at best, of the day-to-day job. Giving a good interview is a difficult problem to solve on both sides of the table.

@@kosterdan hey what are your tips on preparing for interviews

Agreed, although I do find a lot of value in the algorithms portion.

Not controversial at all

love this

Huh?

.. surely that’s specification, the client tells the programmer what they want the computer to do for them, I don’t get it

​@@cdunne1620it means you should write readable code

​@@cdunne1620 No, code is for human eyes as much as it is for machines. Programming is a professional and collaborative work, not some kid in a hoodie typing away. Anyone writing code has to keep in mind that others will use, maintain, and build upon their code. There's a reason why legacy code and spaghetti code are a problem.

I 100% agreed and was about to write the same too :)

I would add that education sometimes knows better what you will need and teach you subjects that are not obviously relevant and that you would overlook.

yeah, most software is easy web+db stuff and they call themselves "fullstack developers"... I know a few more-than-full-stack developers and for them this web+db is just frontend for extreamly complicated systems using the said math. + robotics, elecrical, embedded, heterogenous systems...

i agree... college is bad for many other reasons

Oh yeah, as a self-taught programmer myself, I shy away from hiring "self-taught" programmers. Though there are a lot more factors to that consideration than lack of proven scholastic aptitude. I doubt I will ever take my two degrees off my resume, no matter how much field experience I have. The biggest difficulty I would have in finding a good mid-tier programmer is weeding out rogue programmers - they crop up more often in "self-taught" labor pools than formally trained. That said, when looking for a high-tier programmer (I like to think I fit that bill) I want someone who can tell me what I don't know. I want someone I can hand the project to, who communicates exceptionally (that absolutely applies to readability of code) and not need to question their decisions, in which case a self-taught programmer is indistinguishable from a formally-taught programmer.

I love his satire XD The only satire I understand is about programming, human communication is complicated. This was written by OpenAI.

Cries in 50

@@ashiksaleem360 cries in 69

That was satire? I thought he was saying that the people who consider themselves stack overflow insiders would have much higher numbers and not see 5,000 as a big value. I'm around there too and it feels like I often see people with 10x my score blowing by, especially anyone that's a mod or a subject expert.

@@Paarthk a lot of the time those people go around fixing spelling mistakes and formatting errors just to up their score.. 🙄

The second one was brought up in one of my engineering classes freshman year. It definitely stands true

Time estimation is hard, even for experts on a subject ... aaand most people have an optimism bias. Overestimating by a factor of 2 is a very good start :) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimism_bias

The first one can be prone to misunderstandings IME. I don't remember the exact words right now, but they were like "readable code is better than clever code", in the sense that it doesn't really matter how technically impressive your code is or how many lines of code you "saved" with it, if in the future no one but you can debug it. I say "in my experience" as nowadays I struggle with other's code exactly due to this reason: By trying to save "lines", you make your code harder to understand. Less code is not about less lines.

My experience is that it's always ten times harder than you think it will be - even when you take this into account.

The second advice actually applies to almost ALL projects in life. I am learning to code as a hobby, and as a means to make my own apps/devices for my own personal use. I don't intend on getting a job as a dev. That being said I have MANY hobbies. One of which, is cars, and modifying them. As an old mechanic once told me: "Find out how much money and time you plan on spending in your project car, and multiply it by 2. That's two thirds, of what it will actually cost you." he was so right. :D

Great one

Mathematician turned programmer here, from teaching maths to teaching web dev. That's exactly right and what I always tell my students, particularly ones that act shy around class and don't shower me with questions. This isn't universities in the 1800's or 1900's. You're not paying for access to the information I'm giving you - all of it is freely available on Google nowadays, and more. You're paying for me to stand there cracking jokes and breaking down layers of abstraction into understandable and relatable concepts, and to separate the wheat from the chaff for you. Of course most people could learn everything on their own, but that takes a lot of time, and time is everyone's most valuable currency.

And now we have AI which can do the searching and explaining instead.

@@HichigoShirosaki1 you'd be surprised how completely but confidently wrong it can be when explaining math topics or providing even the simplest of proofs.

@@HichigoShirosaki1 Autopilot on planes has been better at everything a pilot can do for decades now. But they're still there because most people distrust machines. And using AI isn't as intuitive or effective once you get past the trivial introductory level on most topics, and it needs very careful steering if you want fined tuned answers or very specific information. AI just makes my job easier, not moot.

this, man! It's a neat idea but YOU DO NOT NEED IT. Also in say Java, if everything is an object, nothing is (it has no meaning). There should be exactly one and only one language construct for each aspect of programming: Encapsulation? -> Modules Inheritance? -> Subtyping Doing stuff? -> Functions Storing stuff? -> Structs Guess what happens if you try to use one tool for everything? Exactly! You need to invent dozends of useless and dumb patterns to make sense of it. Until this day, I have not fully understood why you would need a "Factory"-Pattern ... Classes are egg-laying wool-milk pigs (a german proverb for something which claims to do the work of several specialized tools), just like MS Excel and we all know how good that works for building reliable systems

Imagine OOP language in which you could change the interaction even with RAM, CPU or compiler... With that much experience I'm 100% sure you got it

@@robertobokarev439 That's called C++ when you start playing the the vtable pointers... don't do that!

I guess the language in itself is just a problem of syntax. If I want to order a beer in Japanese, I just learn how to order it in Japanese. The problem are Frameworks. In Javascript, the struggle is more about how to identify similar or identical concepts between Vue, Svelte, React, Angular... In Java, Spring Boot is really cool, but there the struggle is to find the superclass of the superclass someone else just injected into your constructor. I find myself more digging in the repo than actually writing one line of code.

@@MCRuCrYeah, you do not need it if your program consists of 1000 lines of code, but when it reaches 1.000.000 lines of code I found OOP to be greatly beneficial to me.

Why is this controversial tho

This isn't controversial and applies to everything in life? A good paraphrase would be "be open-minded"

@@sunimod1895 part of it is a joke

A sith lord I am

"only Sith deal in absolutes" is an absolute itself xD

Louder for the people in the back

yeah, i keep forgetting that muricans have to pay for education, it's mindblowing (and sad)

I can confirm this as an Asian. The idea of not having a degree isn't really popularized here

It's true anywhere - you can write software without credentials. Maybe tuition is "free", but there's still opportunity cost.

I think not having a degree only works really well for certain people - those either very lucky or very good. I think I'm a pretty reasonable programmer (although my opinion of my skills goes down as my age goes up!) but my career has been quite mundane and I feel I paid an enormous opportunity cost in not getting a degree until I was 50, when it's almost too late to use it. I tried 3 times, but I flogged myself so hard to get good marks due to the chip on my shoulder I kept burning out and dropping out. I think I could have had much more interesting jobs if I'd got the stupid piece of paper when I was meant to - ie the start of my career. FWIW I didn't learn anything about programming that I hadn't already taught myself more of in all the times I tried uni. I did learn new stuff in all the math subjects, but I haven't had to use it yet. I suspect if I knew it better, like I know programming, I'd use it a lot more - the whole time I was doing stats or linear algebra I was thinking "you must be able to solve anything with this stuff" and promptly forgot all of it after the exam. So I don't think you need a degree to be a good programmer - I think that's a matter of how your brain works and if you have that sort of brain you'll just want to do it anyway, but I do think you pay dearly for not having one in opportunity cost.

fuck your old teacher, coding isnt about memorizing, there is no 'this is the only way you can do that'

It's also the difference between eastern and western teaching modalities. Eastern modality, you are often taught the one correct way to something 1000 times until you achieve mastery. And the Western modality, you stumble around blindly doing a thousand different wrong things, until you achieve mastery. Great things are achieved by Masters and both modalities but it does appear The Western modality provides a creativity and lateral thinking advantage. However a lot of people give up and quit.

I think that teacher being lazy part could be really true. I had a completely different experience in university. We were just given an assignment and a few slides which generally explain how to solve somewhat similar problems and the rest was out own job. There was a forum to ask but most of the times the answer was "if I tell it to you then you won't work on your own". it made for many sleepless nights but we were really kickstarted into thinking, being creative and working on our own. but I think it was quite a lot of work to set up, so I'm glad they did it.

It could also be that your way of solving the problem was valid but less clear or harder to debug.

@@macmcleod1188 There's rarely such a thing as "the one correct way".

I just pause the video when I need to catch up. After all, this is 2020's UKposts, not 1980's cable TV.

Agreed. And you can always go back and watch again.

And UKposts has a setting for playback speed for when I’m feeling dopey

what exactly do you mean? Is it boring to code the best code?

@@liamrobertson2670 somewhat, it's supposed to counter against coders making too sophisticated code for their own ego instead of making it functinal and readable

@@SixCoreSecond I see

The best code is no code.

​@@liamrobertson2670 Code should (amongst others): - be read like plain english - be straight-forward and predictable - be easy to alter/approach according to new requirements - be composed of/itself be simple block(s) - be explicit in error handling (+ great recovery mechanisms) - use the simplest concepts and structures to express complex relationships - be greatly covered in testing (unit testing/integration testing/E2E testing) - scream in the form of broken tests when core functionality is altered - not allow for buggy logic to be described (intensive domain modelling) The desired effect of the code should be one of safety and stability - for the customer, but also for the programmer - it should not make us be afraid of releasing/breaking prod/introducing subtle bugs because of convoluted logic/touching it because it's so complex. When you add all of the above together, "boring code" seems quite mean - but it is actually a great compliment - it allows us to focus on the important bit - the problem itself, and not the implementation detail which is the code.

Word! 100 seconds of everything!

True , i normally don't skip, because we sometime miss something.... But this is the only channel i don't need to speed up things...

lol same

Ain't nobody got 1 hour to go through a tutorial. Especially not experienced devs who just want to get the idea and fundamentals of topic in shortest time possible. I completely disagree with people criticizing this channel for being too fast or not going into depth enough. For me this channel is a blessing and if someone feels like this is too fast and confusing, you probably need to go watch those 1-2 hour long tutorials with typing. People should understand that not every video about programming on UKposts is made for beginners. If you can't follow you probably need to mature more as a programmer and come back later so you could actually value this awesomeness.

1000%

In other words, you cannot properly automate GUI testing, but algorithms can certainly be tested.

That's probably why they focus on unit tests most often

unit tests are starting to grow on me even more recently. unit tests or not i'll have to test my code anyway and it's not usually easier than writing the tests given that there is a framework in place for it. i hook up the tests to my debugger and it saves me a lot of time

you can absolutely automate GUI testing. it's just difficult. i work on a mobile app which does this successfully right now, sharing the same - huge - suite of UI tests (based on Cucumber) among the Android and iOS version. "it's much more work to develop tests" it is, especially since they tend to be flakey (eg. failing on some given device). but it has benefits too. it forces the specification to be clear, and the implementation to be consistent across both versions. it detects device-dependent issues (eg. some element doesn't fit on a smaller device, and thus it's not accessible to the user). "the requirements are likely to change, especially early in development" right - and when they do, and you have rewrite a part of the app, it can save you a lot of time if UI tests protect you against regressions that could crawl in - preventing you from breaking something as an unintended side effect it's much more work to develop tests than not to develop them, but it can also save you a lot of work elsewhere.

@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 you can automate gui testing though... you could turn your gui program tests (in something like selenium or javascript DOM event firings) into a GUI scaffold maybe using chatGPT or something.

We expected mutants to shoot beams out of their eyes but _this_ is the mutation we get of course.

Agree 100%.

I also have the same belief. The instructor should go someway fast and its the job of the student to pause or rewatch the parts that might be complicated. Thats the real advantage of a online course for me instead of being in a classroom

i also agree 100%. And it's youtube, if i miss something i can pause / rewatch for the 6th time. but the info and speed is perfect. It's nice to blast through a concept and then go back to understand it better later

I still put him on 1.75x lol

absolutely true

Nobody wants to pay for any kind of test, unfortunately.

And sometimes they don't even want to pay for proper requirement specifications :(

Thats not controversial, that just a fact

PDD is better :D

There is obvious selection bias here, because people who graduated and people who didn't weren't the same at the start. These two grouos weren't split randomly. Other things being equal, someone who is passionate about IT is more likely to pursue a degree from the start. But it's not that they owe their technical curiosity, their knack for analytical thinking etc. to that degree - the causation runs the other way round. It's like people who play basketball being taller than average. Statistics don't lie, right - "you wanna get tall? Join a basketball team, clearly it helps". Well... :)

​@@richardlyman2961maddest respect if you learnt rust, its so difficult

explain to me how you can use python. the lack of brackets drives me insane. ive written things in python, had no errors pop up, dosnt work. send it to friend, he sends it back, no visible changes, it works. python spacing is black magic and i dont understand it

@@johnathanrichardson the lack of brackets is liberating :D once you get used to it, they will drive you crazy elsewhere :P I hated it at the beginning, but then for one big project I gave it a shot and now I love it. Just use some decent IDE like PyCharm and not that shitty VSCode.

@Shimmy Shai finished and working is much more important than 'perfect'. And in the end perfect things DO NOT exist.

Look into Compression Oriented Programming approach. With COP, I find that the only things I need/want to refactor are the things I've deliberately left unfinished.

@@n-0-1 why don't you have an orange and calm down 🍊

The good news is that this is a sign of you constantly learning.

🤣

I have to remind myself of that all the time when I'm doing hobby projects. First focus on getting it done, after that, it can still be optimised, if needed.

Jackson's rule 1 was Don't do it and rule 2: Don't do it yet.

Premature optimization is the root of all evil.

God sakes... I'm new in coding, I always code while test while rewrite for optimal performance. Too much time coding, little ground covered.

so this is like saying "done is better than perfect" in another way, and yes i couldn't agree more, optimization is necessary when your app has reach a bigger scale of users.

This is an old saying that’s originally aimed at the perfection of a product/creation. I believe a famous artist was referring to a statue at the time the saying was quoted.

@@Khunkurisu Then it's the 21th century adaption of the quote :D

@@kisvegabor Duck Dodgers of the twenty-firfth century!

I defiantly agree with this.

Yeah I agree

try some design job james. they will pay you higher.

Also he wasted some material by cutting the cube

Spoiler: it's play-doh

roasted in seconds

But he delivered it so much faster than the others!

I think the core tenants of agile should work for *almost* every company. The times I've seen it not work is when it is pushes as a narrow approach, e.g. you *have* to do paired programming and have 100% unit test coverage from the get-go (or else your fancily compensated agile coach will tell you "you're not getting it").

When bosses say "agile", they usually mean daily stand ups and unrealistic deadlines.

@@MrEdrftgyuji This... I really felt it. My life was wonderful, I enjoyed my work, and then agile with 2 week sprints ruined it. Now I feel trapped and frustrated.

@@Hannodb1961 Agile's not for everybody.

Oh so much agree. Agile is like a communism it may look like a good idea on the surface, but it is impossible to implement in any complex enough environment.

100%, it's weird how a mid-day nap can spark brilliant ideas. The Spaniards had it right all along.

Definitely agree, though with a slightly different rationale. A lazy programmer will frequently find a way to automate something that they don't want to deal with (within reason of course). While working as a research assistant, I was asked to build some simulation worlds that would have taken me weeks or months to do by hand since the world creator for the program we use is.... Less than good, and hand-coding all of the walls would take forever as you're working with object dimensions, rotations, and absolute positions rather than to-from points. So I took a couple of days and wrote a script that let me hammer out a single world with 70+ individual wall segments in about 30 minutes. I later expanded it to work with a couple of other things that were a complete pain to do by hand (for instance, some animated models required their movements to be timestamped with each waypoint rather than allowing them to move at a set speed, so adding or adjusting a waypoint or speed meant adjusting EVERY waypoint and timestamp with a new set of calculations) and saved myself and the lab a bunch of time and effort.

It's a marathon, not 100m sprint. And with large projects it is even like hiking to Everest. One step at the time. Slowly.

Absolutely correct. I’m retired now, but as a programmer for over 20 years, I found that a midday walk helped me clear my mind when I was stuck on something. Heck, a midday nap helped a lot too. One time I took a nap, and I had a dream with the exact solution I needed for my problem. Pretty sick to be dreaming in code, but at least it helped me when I woke up back in the real world.

@@erikjs this is literally me! Can’t count how many times I’ve dreamt a solution to a issue at work.

Thnk you

I'm self taught. Do you think it's stupid to want to go back and get a degree?

I'm on my 4th year on my CS degree, 90% of the stuff I know are self-taugh and that 10% is Java which I am NEVER going to use

I'd say it's not about getting the actual degree that matters (i.e. the physical paper and graduating) but more so about the structure path school gives. yes you can be self taught (I am) but I would suggest getting your hands on multiple syllabuses and books for computer science and learn what it is that type of degree is trying to teach. the self taught path doesn't have to be like wondering in a dark factory with a weak flashlight

@@jamesking2439 Its not stupid. When I started in the early 1980s I had an arts degree and not a CS degree (my first 3 years of College was science/math, the next 3 were arts). I knew I was ignorant of a lot of things about CS, so I went to a university bookstore and bought text books in algorithms, compiler design, data structure theory, etc. I spent my spare evenings studying for the next 4 years, and it changed how I approached programming. I don't think I would have done as well without the advanced math, but I was taking Engineering level Calculus at a Community College when I was in 12th grade of high school. So math just wasn't an issue for me. HOW you get the knowledge is not important, THAT you get it IS important.

Not sure this is controversial - it's obviously correct :) I think the late 80s was the sweet spot. We had C compilers and 16-bit machines, and even GUIs if you wanted them, and you could understand all of it. Finally getting a C compiler and teaching myself C from a book was one of the most exciting and rewarding things I've done with computers. Having said that I often wonder how I programmed without an IDE - I would miss them.

@@davidtaylor6124 same same, for me it was just a simple text editor and a single .php file in the mid/late 2000s, and the singing of the birds at 4 o clock in the morning after a long coding night. And the feeling that I've just created something that works. Not even knowing there are design patterns and code reviews and configs and security holes ;) it was a good time ;)

check out handmade network, it's people doing things from complete 0

I've the feeling that designers and makers have taken over the software developer world. Those people often lack the deep logical thinking capabilities required for actual programming. In the old days programming was more of a "logical thinking" process, these days it's more and more becoming a "memorization" process. As an embedded dev I've partially been saved from all memorization nonsense, thanks to hardware limitations I guess. If I look at how web-applications are build, those look like one big garbage dump of yet another framework madness to me... Seems like everything is put together using sticky tape these days, as we absolutely can't have someone reinvent the wheel! I still wonder why our great great grandparents didn't put wooden cart wheels under trains and automobiles.

Write C++. Pays more, and the community is generally kind of smart.

That's way more than a kidney.

how much is kidney?

In France I went to public school and it sucked. Paying gives at least some high quality education.

Not really.. good CS education costs same in every country around the cost of a small car..

In india its pretty much the same, cheaper colleges are harder to get into cuz competition, and colleges with less competition are expensive Also, because college with high competition get more attention, their degree is deemed more valuable. So if you just want a degree for gaining experience in the field then tough luck, cuz you have to be an expert to begin with if you want it cheap. And if you take the expensive route, you degree is deemed useless

Sometimes, going for the moon is actually easier to do than whatever "easier" thing the customer had in mind. I got that idea by watching the Corridor Crew (a yt channel) react to the moon landing from the pov of conspiracy theorists as an April Fools. Niko, one of the guys, said something along the lines of "actually going to the moon would've been easier and cheaper than faking going to the moon for that time". And I agree with you, people have the wrong idea about programmers. We don't look for answers, we look for problems. Finding solutions to given problems is what we do 😛. Constrainsts are the roots of creativity after all 😁.

I'm in my second semester of comp sci, and the first thing they taught us in our software engineering class was your first point

@@imcheeze115 Thank you. That's a comfort.

The second one comes up a lot for me in the form of "It only needs to do X. But occasionally it needs to do Y, Z, W, and V, but those don't happen often so they shouldn't be a big deal." In software development, it doesn't matter how often something happens, the same amount of code still needs to be written to support it

As for that #1 - working with programmers for a while now. It happens many times that they tell me something's impossible or has to be done in an ugly way. Then I sit down and do research on my own, and go back to them with some ideas and suddenly it's possible. Maybe not exactly how I envisioned it, but it gives them a path forward. Not that they're bad programmers, but it depends on the type of person they are. My brother has been developing AI, and automated systems, and all sorts of stuff, but sometimes he just misses something that's obvious. Maybe tunnel vision? But I start asking him questions how stuff works and together we figure out the solution. I'm not a coder, it's just my job as a product manager to figure things out. I can't just let it end at "impossible" or "let me do the thinking just tell me what you want". So yeah, I don't think knowing how to code means that you can't benefit from others' input and ideas

I my experience at the Requirements Engineering course in CS, I found that's the most truly description of the work life of a programmer.

I agree. In my experience the customer has a problem, looks at the existing product which to them is a web interface. They'll ask for a change to the UI to get it to do what they need. When this gets to me (lead engineer) I don't have the context of the problem I only have a request for an odd feeling UI change. So my job is to coax the real problem out of the customer. Most of these problems are solved in the backend with no UI change.

@@ljones140 Here, here! Hear here!

Definitely so.

@@ljones140 yep. "The customer is always right" is a contraction of the more exact statement, "The customer subconsciously knows what is right but cannot always tell you what that means."

really ?

@@statuschannel8572 Depends

That is true unfortunately, the hight demand for software, made the bar level that low. I just don't think it will last forever though

I agree. Never done a leet code problem, basic problem solving skills does the trick

its true. but its good if you are expert in algos because its help you improve problem solving skills, best practices.

It actually makes even more sense in countries where lots of companies and institutions require certain degrees to hire someone (I'm in my third year of CS in France and it's definitly better to have one...)

In any country of europe?

Yes but there's also a lot less competition on the Job market for the IT industry. If you know how to code, you'll be able to rake a job in fairly easily.

@@akshaypendyala nope, Netherlands changed their system a few years ago, around 2100€ just to go to an university per year now, average study dept is somewhere between 20k and 50k

In the UK you will pay between 9-20k GBP per year.

true. and they're also really good when you have a little understanding of the topic. his videos are like a summary of the topic & tips too.

That's just beautiful, glad to see you here man

I agree to this. His videos are simple and just enough information to understand it.

Hmm I'd disagree that it's for intermediate devs based on my personal experience. As a beginner I've learned way more stuff on this channel in a short amount of time than any other channel on UKposts. It feels like I've fast tracked my learning time using the short and to the point videos. It also forces me to do research if I don't understand something instead of being fed code to copy and paste into my projects without actually knowing what it does and why it does it. I know every one is human and makes mistake but ever since I've started watching this channel I just can't go back to watching 1+hour tutorials where they make typos and spelling errors thinking its good to show that stuff. Lmao it just messes with my ocd when I can clearly see the mistake or spelling error and they just continue with the video. So yeah that's my opinion based on my experience

Agreed. Even in some videos about subjects I'm familiar with, I watch it video and think "well, that was a nice overview in a very short time". I'd much rather watch a shorter video that makes me interested in the subject so I can read the docs by myself, than watch a long tutorial - sometimes with poorly written code - that barely helps when you actually use the language/tool/framework/etc.

There is this mindset that goes "must obstruct code because if I'm the only one that knows how this works, they will need me". Problems arise when you can't decipher your own code lol.

Truces?

trumps

@@kidmosey You'd be surprised. A variant of this kind of approach is "guarantee your employment by using obscure esoteric languages in your projects". We had one such guy in my workplace, he quit but because he wrote important tools we use he gets contracted to do occasional maintenance because no one here knows the language he wrote it in.

@@abadenoughdude300 what language? Unless it's Befunge or Malbolge it takes 2 weeks.

As a potentcial 1/10 dev, would be interesting to look for the amount of things a 10x programmer do in one day

not yet a developer but i agree that working with certain people could boost your productivity by tenfold, but it only last long if its healthy for you

@@blackerhawk1508 consider pair programming… or get a 10X to break something down and explain it or… get them to show you how to get a new project up and running quickly.

Amen, well defined tasks and clear guidelines for what is needed usually get done 10x faster including unit testing etc. That’s why private projects usually grow faster than what you work with 🤷‍♂️

Is agile bad for software projects? (I ask it for generally game development)

Where did you get that introduction? In a book? If so, what book was it?

Yes, please tell us

Please share the clip, or book, where you found the relevant 'string' class example.🙏

I am not sure OOP has any advantages except maintenance ones, especially when the maintenance crew will be no programmers. Beyond that, things like operator overloading are useful for ease of expression(perhaps what you mean by your string class example) but you don't actually need it.

@@skygardener7849 oop is amazing for complex simulation stuff imo. Not so much business. If you're making something like a dwarf fortress style life simulator though I couldnt imagine doing it in anything but OOP. It allows you to rapidly scope out impact of features. Say you have something that you want to affect anything that walks on two legs-you dont have to remember all 30 biped races youve created, you have it affect the parent object type "biped" and call it a day. And if you create a new biped race you dont have to remember to add the new race to a list or whatever, its just automatically gonna do whatever bipeds do. In any situation where you are creating something with a ton of moving parts you WANT to interact in unforeseen ways OOP is the way to go. When you have a very clear limited scope of functionality that you want to be very efficient and streamlined, OOP doesnt offer much

For one, writing unit tests forces you to think about edge cases beforehand (and clarify requirements in regard to those). This is a huge gain in and of itself, in my opinion.

I believe you when you say you're in your 60s. You put two spaces after a period. :P

But I still agree on the points you make.

@@electrocatalyst Thanks! And yes, I learned written English back in the 1960s. Those rules have become a bit loose since the advent of the internet.

@@rbarnes4076 Personally, one of the better arguments against OOP and its design patterns is that languages shouldn't focus on making it hard-to-impossible to write bad code, they should focus on making it easy to write good code. Rust is a good example of a language which made it easy to make good (memory safe) code, without preventing people from writing unsafe code (anyone can throw an unsafe block around their code and do horrible things, but it's far easier to just write good code)

Spot on. A lot of bad programming stems from the Top > Down since corporate heads wanting to ship out their software asap while having unrealistic deadlines and expectations, forcing the Dev leads to opt for Oject Oriented languages to get the job done in a timely fashion. Combine short deadlines with a bunch of mediocre + bad programmers with unrealistic expectations and OOP, you get a bunch of spaghetti code with a ton of bugs that'll end up costing the company 10x as much in the long run than if they did it correctly from the start. Things get overly abstracted, functions with side-effects, and all that jazz it make it so hard to maintain and very slow to get new devs up and running with the code bases. It's just not a very scalable approach. OOP just allows for bad code design and implementations to seep into the codebase, but it also allows for faster development. It's a double edged sword, but if you have a great Dev Lead and solid programming team, you can get away with it and reap the full benefits that OOP gives you. Functional programming reels in the programmer, forcing them to design and develop better and more scalable codebases, but corporate heads hate the time it takes to get the products rolling and thus are very short sighted. It sucks because most jobs are looking for programmers with OOP experience, and most companies have most of their codebases developed in some OOP language. 80-90% of programmers are mediocre and don't push themselves to get better. They're just the guy working that 9-5 for a paycheck, comes in and just focuses on the small section of code they've been assigned, and only worry about whether that feature they worked on does its job without worrying about any inefficiencies and possible scalability/side effects it could create later on. From my experience, software developers that take the time to truly understand software design and the design of the codebases they're working in are few and far between, which is why a functional programming approach is so desirable since that mediocre 9-5 programmer can just work on that small section, knowing that whatever they implemented has a deliberate outcome with no side-effects.

Comments are for communication. Use them if your code is hard to understand. Before you use them though try to make your code easier to understand. If your comments contain no additional info (just explain what’s obvious) they are a liability.

​@@ssssssstssssssss yeah well that's the issue... often idek what is obvious. ig a good way would be to get someone to look at your code and go "what the hell is that"

@@ssssssstssssssss comments lie. Instead of writing a comment, try to get code that negates what the comment was going to try and explain. If you can’t, then put a comment. But if you find yourself thinking of adding a comment, that is when you need to go back to writing the code. Code doesn’t lie, comments do, and no one ever updates or removes comments so they become bad actors over time.

Here’s an example of commented code that I write: my_wait_avail = asyncio.get_running_loop().create_future() if self.wait_avail != None : # somebody else using this socket -- wait till they’re done await self.wait_avail ♯end if assert self.wait_avail == None self.wait_avail = my_wait_avail # claim ownership of socket Now, would you suggest getting rid of those comments, or not?

@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 yes. If any anything, your methods and properties need better names. It’s like order of operations. Commenting should be the absolute last thing you do. Renaming variables should be done far sooner than leaving a comment.

Bruh what? 😂

My professor in mechanical engineering warned us about a similar interview question where you're handed a technical drawing and ask you what you think that is and if you're not immediately looking at the name of the drawing on the bottom of the page where normally everyone could see it you're out lol.

engineer is a degree tho... you can have one in each of the label you mention. If you mean we should be more cross dev, yeah that's called fullstack isn't it? I'm not a big fan of labelling and semantics...

You actual engineering takes a backseat to ticking arbitrary checkboxes

Please don't say fullstack... It already takes a lot of effort to master backend or frontend.... I don't understand people calling themselves fullstack developers with less experience as they built a project (ToDo app). Technology is changing constantly is another factor. So, I am still trying to figure out, how a fullstack developer can be defined.

@@gagandeep609 That is why a full stack developer is better paid, because he HAD to learn twice : one for the frontend, the other for the backend

@@Naej7 They aren't though, check the latest stackoverflow survey.

not if you enjoy programming challenges, or data structures & algorithms

And big companies love to use them as interview questions which you will spend weeks preparing and to never use them again when you get the job

I think it's fine to brush up on your DSA from time to time. But that shouldn't be your main method of 'improvement' as a programmer.

depends on why are you practicing it, if it's just by joy it's not, if it's for beeing a better programmer o gaining a "faster mind" i guess it is not a waste of time neither. But it wont get you familiar with all the new technologies o will make you related to a specific business.

Not if you have an Interview Coming up.

2x speed watchers represent.

Same... each youtuber I follow I'll normally increase the speed but not with Fireship or Derek Banas.

same!

us

But it's true that information on here is often packed as shit, I've been on some 3 mn videos pausing every 5 seconds and repeatedly going back this spending 15mn on that video lol

Yeah, no one wants to take the responsibility of training new talent, which is why the industry is so starved for developers. Plenty of young talent who never gets the chance to develop their skills further, which leads to a lack of skilled software developers.

100%!

I died a little inside after reading this.

I noticed the opposite, people are hiring juniors because they think they can train them and they're cheaper! The older you get, the harder you are to find a job

@@elmotareal must depend on the industry, big companies can afford the junior guy maybe? In small teams, everyone is looking for rocket scientists with 3 lifetime of experience for a position which usually isn't that exciting in term of tech and pay. The imbalance between expectations employer/employee hurts sometime, especially when you see the candidates knocking at your door with a degree in google only and with a school project they couldn't finish... it is what it is ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

100%. Nowadays, if your trying to make your custom code more and more efficient, your are prob not utilizing other systems and technology effectively.

I feel offended, yet I highly have to agree with your statement😂😭

This is the most web developer comment you could have given. Thanks to this type of thinking people have to wait 30 seconds for word to open.

I also think you should first worry about getting a rough prototype and then refactoring, but have the discipline to NOT develop new stuff while refactoring (you can just jot down any ideas you get while refactoring)

I myself like to find out ways to optimize my code sometimes for fun as an exercise, but I must agree that nowadays unless you're doing game development it doesn't even matter anymore

You and 90% of people, I'd say. I sure belong to that group, even if I ended up enjoying my time working in IT jobs, that was also my rationale for my bachelors/masters.

@@techtutorvideos You still pay years of your life. Of course in the long run that doesn't really mean anything, but it's hard to think like that when you're 18 years old and 3-5 years seems like a huge amount of time

@J Boss many positions arbitrarily put "must have a bachelor's degree to apply" in their job postings which automatically eliminates [most] of the people who don't have it. That's why having a bachelor's degree allows you to atleast apply for it without getting immediately eliminated.

Also MFs don't give you a job or even entry for Interview without a Degree.

There is a difference, you can tell if you did it, I have worked with so many programmers. It gives a wider perspective. Not necessary but relevant.

Often, a few more lines of readable code is better than single line of "clever" unreadable stuff that works, but no one knows why.

@@colombodoesstuff7653 So other developers have an easier time understanding the code, and also you might forget how your clever one liner worked and have to figure it out again.

I'm ok with "Clever" coding, so long as there's a super-simple comment, just so ANYBODY can understand exactly WHAT this crazy regular expression is there for :P

I disagree with this. Clever can also mean an abstraction that makes the code easier to read, removes some indirection, removes boilerplate or reduces duplication. All that matters is that the code is easy to read. If the clever approach is easier to read then use the clever approach. If the clever approach is difficult to understand don't use the clever approach.

@@whossname4399 The difference is in the programmer. There are programmers who write clever code, but their definition of "clever" is "I saw this neat trick/hack/shortcut in a project/repository/article and I now want to use it everywhere". They regularly use these tricks when solving online programming puzzles or playing code golf and now they feel confident bringing those approaches to production. Those programmers invariably write buggy and unreadable spaghetti code that will get refactored if not replaced the day after they leave the company. Then there are programmers who use clever approaches. They manage their time and expectations so that at the end of the day, their code is simple, concise, and as dumb as humanly possible while still getting the job done. These are the programmers who write stable, efficient, and maintainable code, and they finish their tasks while the first programmers are still burning the midnight oil Googling why their tricks stopped working properly in the latest build.

I'm a bit torn on this one. Because at what point would one consider it to be premature? If it's code that should run nightly and basically create a daily report, it might not have to be very fast. However, I know many situations where a job has not been fast enough. I've also seen some outright awful ways of processing data and reading files. The worst one being when a large XML (100k rows) was read, checked and data stored in RAM for every entry in a rather large array (about 1000 entries). That was obviously just someone being stupid, but it's still a case where I had to retroactively optimize. The code itself ran, but was O(n^2) instead of the O(n) after I rewrote it. That's a massive difference.

@@CottidaeSEA would you say premature optimization wouldve been a good thing in this caze?

@@evryon1810 The tldr is basically; just make sure your code isn't shit and does unnecessary stuff and it's never premature optimization. I would say it's not premature optimization, but the correct way of doing things. Assuming we're talking about my own example. The old code had several issues: 1. Performance. 2. Maintainability. 3. Readability. 4. Testability. After refactoring the code, it ran better, looked better, was possible to test and was easier to adjust later on. So the optimization was really just a result of doing things right. Had the person who wrote the code known how to structure code in a better way, the optimization would not have been necessary. I literally just took a loop out of a loop and threw the result into a map. I do have another example though. The code was written in PHP, we couldn't figure out what caused the pages to load slowly; until I checked. We had been fetching a whole load of data then used array_intersect to find matches. Each time only took a few milliseconds at most, but run that 20k times on page load and you got a resource hog. What did I do then? I just did the sane thing and fetched what we wanted instead of everything. We already had information about what IDs we wanted to match, I just had to adjust the SQL a bit and throw out that array_intersect since we already did the filtering. Again, another time where I wouldn't say it's necessarily optimization, but rather doing things the right way. Had I written the code, that issue would never have happened. My code isn't flawless by any stretch of the imagination and frequently has bugs that I usually find promptly, just edge-cases being missed, but never to the point where the code is severely logically flawed. What I consider to be early optimization is more like using bit shifting because it'll save you a little processing power once in a while when doing a very specific calculation. However, if you have something that'll run pretty much constantly, then optimization is rarely premature. Might not have to squeeze every little gain into it, but should at the very least get the work done in as short of a window as possible. It shouldn't delve into the world of the arcane, but just some sound logic is usually good enough.

@@CottidaeSEA i understand, thank you for your detailed explanation 🙏

One thing experience teaches you is to hold off on optimization until you get the code actually working correctly. I revisited a personal command-line script of mine a few days ago. It was taking about 6 seconds to start each time. I soon discovered a couple of things: * Importing matplotlib is quite slow. So if I defer that to the actual plotting function, so it only gets imported if I use that function, that speeds up the invocation of other functions. * When computing stats over a particular sampling interval, my database query was iterating through all the samples and discarding ones outside the range, because I couldn’t be bothered narrowing things down within the query itself. That made sense at the time, but now I have accumulated over 150,000 sample records, it was time to revisit this decision. So I added a couple of extra queries to determine more appropriate time bounds for the actual query for samples. As a result, displaying accumulated counts over the last 30 days went from 6 seconds down to about 1 second.

@@matthewmango4461 lmao

I mean, that other dude's comment was also true. If you're hoping for a channel that guides you through the entire process such that you can do your own stuff, this isn't it. This is just a "get the gist of it" channel (thought I'd guess Fireship paid lessons are much more deep than these). For me, these are exactly what I want. I leave the video with a superficial understanding that is enough to kill my curiosity, without investing too much time.

​@@carlosmspk also that other dude doesn't how to pause and play videos slower on YT

@@cristhianeduardovelazquezc6130 I think you're missing the point. It's not specifically about the video's speed per se, it's the content itself that is "rushed", he could slow down the video all he wanted, and the specifics of implementation, further use cases, and detailed rationale still aren't there, because that's not what this channel is about. Again, because this is the internet and I know someone will completely misinterpret my words, I feel the need to reiterate: I don't agree with that comment, but that doesn't mean it didn't have its merit, everything the dude said is true, it's just that no one who subscribes to this channel expects anything else...

Yup, I love this rushed video manner. I'm getting asleep whenever pleople are explaining things sooo slow

Everything needs to be tested. Otherwise what's the metric of knowing that your code actually works? The difference between a QA and a developer is that QA should be thinking of edge cases where multiple functions/scenarios interact. If your code fails my first basic test, e.g. 1 + 1 = 2, then we know you have issues with coding.

Unit tests don’t make sense for hello world program, but for anything long term they save millions of dollars to companies. With bigger projects you might think you understand part of the code you work on, but they you get 10 unit test fails and you start seeing what you did wrong.

Games are somewhat tricky. I write tests for "library" code: math functions, file parsing, memory allocation, lock-free queues and regular data structures and fibers. IME, it's the lower / lowest level code that needs to be the most battle-tested. Fibers (aka coroutines) are key to make identical and not have subtle differences in assembly behaviour when porting. The case where you switch to had to be handled, and there's a test in the test suite for it. Pretty close isn't good enough. Get it wrong, and you have an opaque crash in the fiber's start function, and it happens *after* the function returns. You can't really reason about that if it's intermingled with regular engine code, but it's a trivially reproducible if it's segregated into a 20 line test.

@@whossname4399 I mean... you can't really unit test 3rd party APIs... you can only smoke test them.

@@GameFuMaster shouldn't have to test their stuff at all that's their job. You should test that it works in your logic though

The goal should be to built progressively difficult programs

Eight hours a day is plenty of practice, especially if you're solving real problems for real customers, and you take the time and effort to learn the most effective ways to solve those problems.

@@Rsharlan3 don't think the issue is working on your off time as much as passion for the field. A lot of people who only do it as a job might be less interested in getting better. Most of the best people I work with were interested in the field prior to working in it. Once your in it though you should have a life/work balance though.

The main issue I encounter with devs who don't love to code is that they are also the devs who write unreadable code. In their mind, if the code works, their job is done. Sure, there are exceptions, but a majority of the unpassionate devs are like that.

i think it is even MORE unhealthy to be doing something you don't enjoy. It's fine if you don't code on the weekends due to lack of time or something, but because you just get tired at the thought because it is "hard and demanding" then idk. Do something you like?

I use alot of swear words in my code comments :)

College doesn't really teach programming. College teaches computer science. They are different things. Programming is a trade skill like Plumbing or being an electrician.

​@@macmcleod1188This is pretty much how I think about it. I always refer to coding boot camps/schools as "trade school", because that's what it is. Going to school for CSE is different, it's like having an apprenticeship in plumbing vs studying mechanical/civic/chemical engineering. In both cases you have the skillset to make money and support yourself, but the latter gives a deeper understanding. It's not needed, but it great for those that want to know the theory or want to go into R&D.

A basic intuition for what takes up time (usually IO round trips and more rarely CPU) as well as space (memory and disk) is really valuable. You don't have to be a wizard in time/space complexity analysis, but a lot of the self-taught programmers are simply unaware and end up with under-performing applications at the worst possible time. For instance, if you get 10000 new users over the weekend because of a blog post, but there's a sequential bottleneck, you're in a very difficult and time-pressing situation. Now, this isn't just a problem with self-taught or beginner programmers. Many frameworks, libraries, etc, aren't even documenting how much resources operations can be expected to use. I end up having to write my own micro-benchmarks to get a ballpark sense of performance. A great counter-example is Redis, which has incredible documentation including time complexities of every operation. More people - especially framework and library developers - should follow their lead imo.

That's only true because programming is rather more involved than just programming. You don't necessarily need to love programming, but if you don't love problem-solving, puzzles and searching for efficient solutions, you're probably going to be shit at programming anything interesting.

You can love programming but hate coding, coding it's just a tool to get the job done & tons of people seem to think that programming is typing in any language on a dark terminal You don't hear carpenters claim that you have to love hitting a nail with a hammer to be a carpenter, that's just a tool. You should like building stuff instead

I don't see how people who treat it as job can be better than people who immerse themselves into it all day and night.

oof i strongly disagree with this one so you win i guess

@@alonsoACR In what sense? It’s a fairly benign take and most devs would agree.

the answer to almost all software questions is "it depends" :D

That's basically the answer to everything.

@@farhanaditya2647 it depends

@@JohnCarloCahimat You got me 😂

Honestly, and it goes to same with most advice that I ever received.

And that (i.e. Java-style) is object *oriented* programming. So OOP is, indeed, shit. Objects are fine as one tool out of many in a programmers skillset.

​@@Ignas_ nice logic there

That really depends on how you do things. for example, in Java Android programming, you can inherit from Fragment to make fragments or make an abstract class that inherits from fragments to introduce fragments with extra functionality, those are both completely reasonable. In many Projects people make a DB class that handles all the db stuff, encapsulating that into a single class is very handy. OOP Can definitely be horrible, I've seen that many times, but that's more down to the dev.

Well, he's not using Functional Programming then. He is just using functions in his programming. When people say FP is shit, they mean Haskell- and Agda-style, where every variable is immutable, monads and stupid syntax is everywhere, lots of copying, etc

Function pointers are all that was needed

And changing requirements are exactly when you want to be able to refactor easily. Also if you write your tests first you tend to only rely on the interface, so your code can change without breaking the test.

Sounds like you agree with the concept of writing tests to make sure code *stays* correct?

@@problemat1que Yes. Tests can also help write code in test-driven development, especially when you can just write tests with inputs and expected outputs.

I fully agree. It's easy to just test a new function manually, just run it in the main once and you probably know if it's correct but you don't want to do this after every refactor. Code breaks so often after a refactor, someone might just add a throw or something else that looks insignificant but it can break code that looks completely unrelated.

I'd say coverage can be really subjective so 100% is not a good choice if it means 100% total lines but 100% scripts can be a great rule of thumb

You have 2 important keywords in your post "problem" and "world". I think it's generally better to model the problem, than to model the world. Sometimes both things overlap but not always. When they don't overlap you often end up with classes that don't really exist in the real world, like managers, delegators etc. OOP works really nicely when your problem domain really does contain many of those real life objects.

@@MsJavaWolf not necessarily. I’ve found that most problems in fact can be explained with things in our world. Are we to believe that managers don’t exist in our world?

I've found the total opposite. I think it's a way of thinking. OOP is really hard for me to comprehent as I'm more of a "connect the dots" thinker. Functional programming is way easier for me and way easier to mainain as well.

OOP is definitely an amazing tool at modeling not only the real world and the subsets that make up the problem at hand, but also how to go about designing the solution for such problem. It also makes your solution easier to explain at a high level, which is invaluable when communicating your solution.

@@zorbat5 I like to think of classes as just another type of scope - function scope, file scope, for-loop scope, etc.

Very well said Feeb! (Also your cat photo looks exactly like my cat Hercules!) But ya: what you said above is a perfect description of the talent Jeff has (and perfected) in making these engaging, entertaining and uniquely styled Fireship videos. Channels like these are by far much more rare in all fields.

100$ agree. High information density while still being approachable.