What do people consider knowing when it comes to language?

[TridenT]

Mostly talking about programming languages, but I guess spoken works too.

What would you consider knowing a programming language? What do EMPLOYERS think that knowing the language is?

I'm thinking of Java for instance... what would you consider knowing the language? Knowing all 5000+ classes in-and-out that Java has to begin with? D:

I can has hmm...

 

[lxskllr]

Being able to do something productive. With most things, you don't need to know 75% of the total be effective, or even exceptional. The trick is honing in on the stuff that's important. You do that through experience, and learning from other people. Learning doesn't mean school, it means doing, and finding the best ways to do things.

 

[Leros]

Most employers don't care what programming languages you know. They care about the basic concepts. For example, they might care that you know about object-oriented programming, but they could care less if you know C++ or Java or any other OO language.

A good programmer can pick up a new language and learn the associated libraries fairly quickly. What matters is that you understand the basic fundamentals of algorithms, data structures, and problem solving in general.

My personal experience has been that companies who want a Java expert, .NET expert, etc are looking for less qualified employees.

I've done a ton of interviews in the past couple of years (and gotten offers from most of them ). When they ask me to solve a problem in code on a whiteboard, I usually code in some made up language (usually something C-like) that has convenient libraries for whatever I'm solving. Nobody has ever had a problem with that.

 

[ShawnD1]

I'd say you know the language when you can make things work pretty damn good on the first try.

Not knowing it means you'll get a bunch of errors and it takes a hell of a long time to figure out why.
syntax error
syntax error
<thing> is not properly addressed
irq_not_less_than_or_equal_to

 

[TridenT]

Most employers don't care what programming languages you know. They care about the basic concepts. For example, they might care that you know about object-oriented programming, but they could care less if you know C++ or Java or any other OO language.

A good programmer can pick up a new language and learn the associated libraries fairly quickly. What matters is that you understand the basic fundamentals of algorithms, data structures, and problem solving in general.

My personal experience has been that companies who want a Java expert, .NET expert, etc are looking for less qualified employees.

I've done a ton of interviews in the past couple of years (and gotten offers from most of them ). When they ask me to solve a problem in code on a whiteboard, I usually code in some made up language (usually something C-like) that has convenient libraries for whatever I'm solving. Nobody has ever had a problem with that.

I think if that's all that mattered you could just take 4 courses at some school and be hired at any job. Just take a couple intro courses. Take a couple data structures and algorithm courses. Now you know what binary trees and linear search is... woo...?

Surely there must be more to it.

 

[lxskllr]

I think if that's all that mattered you could just take 4 courses at some school and be hired at any job. Just take a couple intro courses. Take a couple data structures and algorithm courses. Now you know what binary trees and linear search is... woo...?

Surely there must be more to it.

Knowing, and doing are different things. People that "know" how to do something, but can't apply it well are almost as useless as people who don't know anything.

 

[Leros]

I think if that's all that mattered you could just take 4 courses at some school and be hired at any job. Just take a couple intro courses. Take a couple data structures and algorithm courses. Now you know what binary trees and linear search is... woo...?

Surely there must be more to it.

I'll somewhat agree with you...

I don't feel that most of the information I learned in college has a lot of value. In fact, I don't remember 99% of the stuff I learned in every class (I remember some of the basic concepts, but hardly any of the details). I think that, only talking about information, I probably don't know much more now than I did when I started college.

I do however think that college did a few very valuable things for me.

1) It made me aware that certain concepts existed. For example, I don't remember hardly anything from the lectures we did on hash functions. However, I do know what hash functions are and if I ever find myself needing something like a hash function, I have enough knowledge to realize what I need to research.

2) I learned how to learn. In high school and, to some extent, community college, information is handed to you. In college, you do most of your learning on your own. You have to be able to teach yourself, which is a pretty valuable thing to know when you're working.

3) I learned approaches to problem solving. In college, you do a lot of assignments that don't seem like they apply to the real world. They don't, but the same problem solving skills you use to solve those problems can be applied to any problem in general.

 

[Leros]

Knowing, and doing are different things. People that "know" how to do something, but can't apply it well are almost as useless as people who don't know anything.

A freshman or sophomore CS student probably knows more about the details of data structures than a graduating CS student (the graduating students forgot the details).

The graduating CS student probably has better intuition and sense of when to use a certain data structure.

 

[Ricemarine]

A freshman or sophomore CS student probably knows more about the details of data structures than a graduating CS student (the graduating students forgot the details).

The graduating CS student probably has better intuition and sense of when to use a certain data structure.

Freshmen and non-CS sophomores would not know much. The beginner CS courses IIRC do not go into much detail about data structures at all. CS sophomores and juniors would take the classes to learn about data structures and would retain a fair amount of it IMO. Of course, a lot of the other CS courses focus on other things that aren't as necessary in the real world.

AFAIK, the concepts are what matter and implementing the concepts. Data structures are very important. Syntax is slightly important when writing code (and doing phone interviews).

 

[TridenT]

I'll somewhat agree with you...

I don't feel that most of the information I learned in college has a lot of value. In fact, I don't remember 99% of the stuff I learned in every class (I remember some of the basic concepts, but hardly any of the details). I think that, only talking about information, I probably don't know much more now than I did when I started college.

I do however think that college did a few very valuable things for me.

1) It made me aware that certain concepts existed. For example, I don't remember hardly anything from the lectures we did on hash functions. However, I do know what hash functions are and if I ever find myself needing something like a hash function, I have enough knowledge to realize what I need to research.

2) I learned how to learn. In high school and, to some extent, community college, information is handed to you. In college, you do most of your learning on your own. You have to be able to teach yourself, which is a pretty valuable thing to know when you're working.

3) I learned approaches to problem solving. In college, you do a lot of assignments that don't seem like they apply to the real world. They don't, but the same problem solving skills you use to solve those problems can be applied to any problem in general.

1) I agree with that, but in that sense you invalidate #2.
2) Here you say college is about learning on your own (Which makes college pointless in that aspect). Yet in #1 you say college introduced these things to you... which you could introduce yourself.
3) I don't really see what kind of problem solving approaches you learn. What exactly did you learn that was new that allowed you to approach things differently?

 

[Leros]

Freshmen and non-CS sophomores would not know much. The beginner CS courses IIRC do not go into much detail about data structures at all. CS sophomores and juniors would take the classes to learn about data structures and would retain a fair amount of it IMO. Of course, a lot of the other CS courses focus on other things that aren't as necessary in the real world.

AFAIK, the concepts are what matter and implementing the concepts. Data structures are very important. Syntax is slightly important when writing code (and doing phone interviews).

Hmm, at my school the data structures course is taken in the spring semester of their freshman year. An advanced algorithms class (which touches on some more complex data structures) is taken around the junior year.

 

[Leros]

1) I agree with that, but in that sense you invalidate #2.
2) Here you say college is about learning on your own (Which makes college pointless in that aspect). Yet in #1 you say college introduced these things to you... which you could introduce yourself.
3) I don't really see what kind of problem solving approaches you learn. What exactly did you learn that was new that allowed you to approach things differently?

A professor introduces you to the concepts and teaches you the basics. Then the professor gives you an assignment to force you to learn more and understand it deeper. Later, the professor gives you an exam to force you to review the concept.

A large portion of teaching is forcing the students to put in the effort to learn (motivating them with things like grades). In a perfect world, teaching would just be lectures and the students would be self-motivated enough to learn on their own, but we all know that isn't the case.

 

[Ricemarine]

Hmm, at my school the data structures course is taken in the spring semester of their freshman year. An advanced algorithms class (which touches on some more complex data structures) is taken around the junior year.

As quoted from the UW (where Trident is) website:

CSE 142 Computer Programming I (4) NW, QSR
Basic programming-in-the-small abilities and concepts including procedural programming (methods, parameters, return values) , basic control structures (sequence, if/else, for loop, while loop), file processing, arrays and an introduction to defining objects. Offered: AWSpS.

CSE 143 Computer Programming II (5) NW, QSR
Continuation of 142. Concepts of data abstraction and encapsulation including stacks, queues, linked lists, binary trees, recursion, instruction to complexity and use of predefined collection classes. Prerequisite: CSE 142. Offered: AWSpS.

CSE 332 Data Abstractions (4)
Covers abstract data types and structures including dictionaries, balanced trees, hash tables, priority queues, and graphs; sorting; asymptotic analysis; fundamental graph algorithms including graph search, shortest path, and minimum spanning trees; concurrency and synchronization; and parallelism. Not available for credit for students who have completed CSE 373. Prerequisite: either CSE 311 or CSE 321.

CSE 373 Data Structures and Algorithms (3)
Fundamental algorithms and data structures for implementation. Techniques for solving problems by programming. Linked lists, stacks, queues, directed graphs. Trees: representations, traversals. Searching (hashing, binary search trees, multiway trees). Garbage collection, memory management. Internal and external sorting. Intended for non-majors. Not open for credit to students who have completed CSE 326 or CSE 332. Prerequisite: CSE 143.

CSE332 is the majors course, 373 is the outdated non-majors course.

 

[TridenT]

As quoted from the UW (where Trident is) website:


CSE332 is the majors course, 373 is the outdated non-majors course.

It's annoying you can't take anything above 143 at UW unless you're admitted to the program. (80 admitted a year in a school of 40,000+) There are those courses for non-majors, but they're useless if you want to be a cs major in the end.

 

[Ricemarine]

It's annoying you can't take anything above 143 at UW unless you're admitted to the program. (80 admitted a year in a school of 40,000+) There are those courses for non-majors, but they're useless if you want to be a cs major in the end.

I agree with the 142/143 issue. The CS department does allow petitioning, but the chances of getting into the 300 level major classes are slim to none. With the non-majors course, because of the "trend that non-cs students do not perform as well a cs students", the committee will treat 373/374 lower than the major equivalent. However, they are NOT useless classes. 373 and 374 are very good classes that teach a lot of the advanced information that's necessary to succeed in computer science.

Btw, your statistic IMO does not represent the necessary information for a proper assessment. Referring to the link below, at most 391 people have applied to the CS department (~150 for CSE). If we consider your number of students enrolled, less than 1&#37; of the entire student population actually apply to CS. Overall, the CS/CSE department takes in ~160 students annually (out of 500+ students), or ~ 33% of the applicants. That is about ~7-10% less than the EE counterpart, which accepted 39.6% of the 480 applicants last year.

http://data.engr.washington.edu/pls/portal30/STUDENT_APPL.RPT_APPLICANT_STATISTICS_YEAR.SHOW_PARMS

 

[TridenT]

I agree with the 142/143 issue. The CS department does allow petitioning, but the chances of getting into the 300 level major classes are slim to none. With the non-majors course, because of the "trend that non-cs students do not perform as well a cs students", the committee will treat 373/374 lower than the major equivalent. However, they are NOT useless if you get into the major. 373 and 374 are very good classes that teach a lot of the advanced information that's necessary.

Btw, your statistic IMO does not represent the necessary information for a proper assessment. Referring to the link below, at most 391 people have applied to the CS department. If we consider your number of students enrolled, less than 1&#37; of the entire student population actually apply to CS. Overall, the CS/CSE department takes in ~160 students annually, or ~ 33% of the applicants. That is about ~7-10% less than the EE counterpart, which accepted 39.6% of the 480 applicants last year.

http://data.engr.washington.edu/pls/portal30/STUDENT_APPL.RPT_APPLICANT_STATISTICS_YEAR.SHOW_PARMS

:O They actually post the stats online? They need to get that shit indexed by Google better!

I'm transfer student so I am royally fucked. I looked at UW statistics for recent years. It was less than %20 for 2010-2011. D: Do Spring, CS, Men, No, Yes, Upper... watch my death be unveiled. Autumn + Spring scares me. If I don't get admitted in the spring... I'm really screwed. I'll have to start really pounding away at the math and physics classes.

If I manage just a 3.3 average for the next few terms I'll have a 3.72GPA when I apply. Which, sucks, but it's all I can hope for with these professors I am getting. That will put me in the midrange of the applicants.

 

[Ricemarine]

:O They actually post the stats online? They need to get that shit indexed by Google better!

I'm transfer student so I am royally fucked. I looked at UW statistics for recent years. It was less than %20 for 2010-2011. D: Do Spring, CS, Men, No, Yes, Upper... watch my death be unveiled. Autumn + Spring scares me. If I don't get admitted in the spring... I'm really screwed. I'll have to start really pounding away at the math and physics classes.

2010-2011 looks to be more of an outlier *cough*. Someone needs to look at the general trend more than specific data *cough cough*.

 

[TridenT]

2010-2011 looks to be more of an outlier *cough*. Someone needs to look at the general trend more than specific data *cough cough*.

Prepare for the worst or die is my motto! I just happen to have the worst possible thing happen to me far more often than others can believe is possible.

Sigh. I can imagine with more cuts in budgets and shit like that that it will only get worse!

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I just happen to have the worst possible thing happen to me far more often than others can believe is possible.

Like how you're getting a free ride through school? And you don't need to work a part-time job? And your text books are all paid for? Yeah, everything seems to go horribly wrong for you academically.

 

[TridenT]

Like how you're getting a free ride through school? And you don't need to work a part-time job? And your text books are all paid for? Yeah, everything seems to go horribly wrong for you academically.

That's the financial side. Besides, I've been going to a CC for the past 3 years(1 year and 2 terms of that covered with guvment). It's not like I am getting my moneys worth right now... Last I checked, academically meant grades/professors/school/etc. It didn't mean finance.

I'm still waiting on stupid admission decision from UW too (It'll be auto-accept but still). Ugh. I bet I'll be on every fucking waiting list when I register.

Fact is, I have been getting TERRIBLE professors and that will reflect in my grades. They're terrible at explaining things and the lectures are terrible.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Fact is, I have been getting TERRIBLE professors and that will reflect in my grades. They're terrible at explaining things and the lectures are terrible.

You could get Richard Feynman incarnate and still whine about your terrible professors. School is what you make of it.

 

[TridenT]

You could get Richard Feynman incarnate and still whine about your terrible professors. School is what you make of it.

You're wrong.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

You're wrong.

Prove it, cocksmoker.

 

[TridenT]

Prove it, cocksmoker.

I'll reuse your stupid phrase.

You could get Richard Feynman incarnate and still whine about your terrible professors. School is what you make of it.

Life is what you make of it. If you are born in the heart of severe poverty with a terminal illness then you aren't trying hard enough if you die at a young age without a PhD in physics from MIT.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Life is what you make of it. If you are born in the heart of severe poverty with a terminal illness then you aren't trying hard enough if you die at a young age without a PhD in physics from MIT.

I think the point is that you weren't born in povery, and in fact in the scheme of things are unbelievably privileged, and you're a spoilt little shit who wastes every opportunity at everything.