 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I guess part of the point is that knowing C isn't the end-all be-all of
> programming. :-)
I've been saying that for years, but nobody believes me... :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Other than the mandelbrot generator, I don't really have the math to do
> any of those projects. (Or the patience anymore, for that matter.)
Well that's just it. Is it that you couldn't do this stuff? Or just that
you can't be bothered to do it?
>> But not massively relevant to this specific application.
>
> Of course it is. It means "I can think, and write, and organize a
> document."
Well, that's what I used in the end, so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a complete
> coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
This counts for very little in modern programming, really.
Someone did an analysis a few years ago of "unix gurus", to figure out how
they'd become gurus. The only commonality found was that they'd all learned
where to efficiently look for the answers.
I'm currently using very little that has been in a textbook. Even
programming languages these days are changing faster than books are written
about them.
No college is going to teach you how to port Linux to an embedded system, or
how to get hardware acceleration into Qt's drawing routines.
I remember only vaguely my ray-tracing class. If I wanted to write a
ray-tracer, I'd have to sit down with books or web pages and figure out all
the math again. What I remember is the basics of how the process works, so
I know what math I have to learn, for example.
> (I tell you, the number of times I've spent weeks working something out,
> only to discover that there's some textbook somewhere with the exact
> solution I was looking for already written down... If I had a thorough
> knowledge of the subject, I'd have known the answer in the first place!)
No, what you need to do is practice learning where to find the answers.
Unless you're the type that remembers all the details of everything you've
learned. I used to be like that, I think, but it seems to have been going
downhill over the years. :-(
>> Give it a couple of days, and if you don't hear anything, write back.
> Don't have a way to do that.
Find a way. Of course they have an address, and a person works there.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well that's just it. Is it that you couldn't do this stuff? Or just that
> you can't be bothered to do it?
Let's see...
> - Built a recursive Turtle-style fractal plotter.
I could do that.
> - Built a Lambda calculus interpretter.
I could probably do that really inefficiently, if I first sat down and
learned Lambda calculus.
> - Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
I could probably do that with a whole bunch of work and learning, depending
on what you mean, as long as the actual mathematical notation didn't get in
the way.
> - Built a modular software sound synthesizer.
I have no idea how to do that. I've never done anything with sound, and
barely have used Fourier transforms on visual data.
(Did you see the virtual beat-box one in Haskell?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeks3mPvlGU )
> - Built a collection of data compression modules.
I could probably do that with good explanations of how the compression
works. I probably couldn't invent any kind of useful compression algorithm.
Assuming you mean lossless compression.
> - Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
I barely remember how a prolog interpreter works, let alone how to code one.
I think I did a unification engine back in college for a class assignment, tho.
> - Built a simple ray tracer.
Other than knowing where to get the tutorials? I could probably spend a day
tracking down the math to eventually get something coming out. Anything
sophisticated? Probably not worth the effort, but I could probably learn to
do it.
So there you go. Mandelbrot and Turtle fractals are about the only thing on
your list I could do off the top of my head without sitting down for a day
or more to learn what I need to know. I don't think there's anything on your
list I *couldn't* do. You just wouldn't want to pay me to learn it first,
given folks like you are looking for jobs. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a complete
> coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
> <snip>
> I worry though - on paper, I don't sound very impressive at all. Will I
> ever get past the initial deselection?
Have you considered changing fields? You could apply your aptitudes to
something that doesn't require such large backgrounds of knowledge. You
could get away from the Internet and this news server for large chunks
of time. You could, if you desired, go back to the tech field someday
KNOWING that it's what you really want.
Life works very differently with a change in career.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a
>> complete coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
>
> This counts for very little in modern programming, really.
True, but it probably counts of a hell of a lot in mathematics.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>> - Built a recursive Turtle-style fractal plotter.
>
> I could do that.
Course you could. ;-)
>> - Built a Lambda calculus interpretter.
>
> I could probably do that really inefficiently, if I first sat down and
> learned Lambda calculus.
Um, dude... it's the Lambda calculus! Inefficiency is built-in. We're
talking about a programming language where the program to calculate 2+2
barely fits on one line. ;-)
>> - Built a mini-Mathematica engine.
>
> I could probably do that with a whole bunch of work and learning,
> depending on what you mean, as long as the actual mathematical notation
> didn't get in the way.
I mean it could take a simple mathematical expression and collect like
terms, fold constants, and a few simple things like that.
>> - Built a modular software sound synthesizer.
>
> I have no idea how to do that. I've never done anything with sound, and
> barely have used Fourier transforms on visual data.
See my other reply. It involved envelope generators, amplitude shaping,
mixing, variable-frequency oscilators [which produce a Fourier series],
and FM operators. Only the latter is remotely complicated; ask Wolfram
Alpha about "sin(x + pi sin(x))".
> (Did you see the virtual beat-box one in Haskell?
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qeks3mPvlGU )
No, but... hmm, this looks like the kind of crazy stuff a Haskeller
would do. (Pity none of this works on Windoze.)
>> - Built a collection of data compression modules.
>
> I could probably do that with good explanations of how the compression
> works. I probably couldn't invent any kind of useful compression
> algorithm. Assuming you mean lossless compression.
Yeah, I've yet to get any lossy algorithm to work. (If by "work" you
mean "produce something vaguely resembling the input".) I only did stuff
like RLE, LZW, Huffman, etc.
>> - Built a mini-Prolog interpretter.
>
> I barely remember how a prolog interpreter works, let alone how to code
> one. I think I did a unification engine back in college for a class
> assignment, tho.
Heh. This coming from the guy who was telling *me* how unification
works. :-P
> So there you go. Mandelbrot and Turtle fractals are about the only thing
> on your list I could do off the top of my head without sitting down for
> a day or more to learn what I need to know. I don't think there's
> anything on your list I *couldn't* do. You just wouldn't want to pay me
> to learn it first, given folks like you are looking for jobs. :-)
Hmm... interesting perspective.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/11/09 10:32, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a
>> complete coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
Missed this the first time round.
Trust me - college courses are _never_ comprehensive. They'll teach the
basics, and go into one or two aspects in detail. Really good
courses/universities will make students do nasty projects that will
force them to learn things comprehensively, but that's rare.
There just isn't time in the classroom.
For some areas, someone may know it really well because he took 3
courses which utilized it.
> Someone did an analysis a few years ago of "unix gurus", to figure out
> how they'd become gurus. The only commonality found was that they'd all
> learned where to efficiently look for the answers.
++
I never met anyone who really knew his stuff AND boasted about not
reading manuals. Conversely, all the people I met who boast such a thing
never became experts in much.
--
I am reading a very interesting book about anti-gravity. I just can't
put it down.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Um, dude... it's the Lambda calculus! Inefficiency is built-in.
All the more reason to need to understand the efficient way to evaluate it.
>> I barely remember how a prolog interpreter works, let alone how to
>> code one. I think I did a unification engine back in college for a
>> class assignment, tho.
>
> Heh. This coming from the guy who was telling *me* how unification
> works. :-P
That's the point, tho. I vaguely remember how it works, well enough to know
why I care or would want it. If you asked me to *do* it correctly, I'd have
to look up how.
>> So there you go. Mandelbrot and Turtle fractals are about the only
>> thing on your list I could do off the top of my head without sitting
>> down for a day or more to learn what I need to know. I don't think
>> there's anything on your list I *couldn't* do. You just wouldn't want
>> to pay me to learn it first, given folks like you are looking for
>> jobs. :-)
>
> Hmm... interesting perspective.
Of course there are things I'm already good at. Just not the stuff you're
talking about. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:22:06 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>> On the other hand, anybody with a real education would already know
>>> how to do algebra and solve equations. It's only me who's had to guess
>>> that stuff from what I can scrounge off the Internet and invent off
>>> the top of my head.
>>
>> In other words, you overcame circumstances rather than giving up.
>> That's more than most people will do. You did real research instead of
>> having it handed to you in a classroom.
>
> On the other hand, somebody taught in a classroom would have a complete
> coverage of the subject, not just bits and pieces of it.
With advanced topics, it's rare that a classroom experience will give you
truly complete coverage of the subject. Remember that the line of work
I'm in is technical training? A 5-day class (or 15 days or 20 days) of
training on using Linux won't begin to scratch the surface of the full
capabilities of the system. People learn in different ways - some people
benefit from classroom training/learning experiences, and some people do
much better with self-study.
You seem to do very well with self-study. That's not a bad thing, and
many employers prefer people who say that they are self-motivated to
learn new things. Often times they'll prefer that over scads of formal
education, contrary to what the job posting says the minimum requirements
are.
>> You can get one, and you are good enough. Those that turn you down
>> aren't good enough for you because they're not willing to look at what
>> your capabilities are.
>
> I worry though - on paper, I don't sound very impressive at all. Will I
> ever get past the initial deselection?
You don't sound impressive to you because you're you. Don't guess at
what other people are or aren't impressed by, and trust those of us who
say that you are impressive.
> It's a web form. Any 6 year old with a web browser can submit an
> application. They must be getting several hundred million *per hour*.
Doubtful that they're getting that many per hour.
> Obviously they will have been prepared for this, and will have an
> automated system of some kind to filter out the garbage. I just hope
> they don't filter *me* out!
Well, we'll see - if they do for some reason, then it's on to the next
opportunity. And the next.
>> Give it a couple of days, and if you don't hear anything, write back.
>
> Don't have a way to do that.
Or call them. I'm sure their office is listed in the phone book or the
number is available on the website. Be creative in finding a way to
contact them, especially a company like Wolfram would likely be impressed
by the application of some problems solving techniques to ensure that
they got the application.
Hell, it may even be part of why they didn't send an automated
response. :-)
>>> Also not amusing: Sending my details over an unencrypted link? What,
>>> you couldn't afford HTTPS??
>>
>> After you get a job there, this would be something to ask about.
>
> Heh, yeah...
Wouldn't be the first time it's been done. I've done it myself after
accepting a job (internal transfer or new employer). Sometimes an
outside perspective illuminates something that people working inside a
company never even thought about.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
