[COMMUNISTCHINA]

Does being a marginal programmer necessarily mean you'll be a marginal computer scientist?

Just completed my 2nd year at college, and I've had two semesters of Java; I am "okay" at it, but I am definitely NOT up to snuff. It's just hard for me, and I need a lot more practice I guess. But, I have already had an applied logic course that deals with logic for hardware and software, and I made an A in there.

I feel as though I'm destined for mediocrity because of my programming skillzzzz though.

tl;dr - I suck at Java. Can I still be a CS major?

This post has been edited by COMMUNISTCHINA: 10 May 2008 - 08:31 PM

[KYA]

Theres other stuff to do besides java, I don't particularly care for java myself personally in lieu of other options

[1lacca]

I know a bunch of CS people who suck at Java, but they are good at math and things like that.
The question is why do you suck at Java. If it is because you don't get the whole algorithm thing, or math background to the problems you are working on, or you just have problems with OO or the developer tools.

[baavgai]

Computer Math types, the ones who get all excited over theoretical best cases and Big O equations, aren't necessarily good programmers. They can be fine mathematicians, good theorists, and understand material without problem, they just lack the coding knack. It works the other way around, as well. ( I didn't enjoy calc and fought through it, I then tutored my math professor in BASIC programming. )

Sort answer, IMHO, Marginal Programmer != Marginal Computer Scientist.

[COMMUNISTCHINA]

1lacca, on 11 May, 2008 - 05:36 AM, said:

or you just have problems with OO or the developer tools.

OO seems to be the killer.

baavgai, on 11 May, 2008 - 09:30 AM, said:

Sort answer, IMHO, Marginal Programmer != Marginal Computer Scientist.

I feel better already.

[baavgai]

COMMUNISTCHINA, on 11 May, 2008 - 02:15 PM, said:

OO seems to be the killer.

It' may be imperative languages in general that are the issue. The vast majority of programming is procedural, OO still being procedure with an extra abstraction layer. You might want to look into declarative languages; they often make more sense to some folks. Erlang seems to be gaining popularity. Lisp is still has a fan base. Even SQL or XSLT are programming in a different direction. Chances are, there is a programming paradigm that will click with how you think.

I'm ofter surprised how many programmers can produce pages of good OO code and totally fail to grasp a basic SQL statement.

Good luck.

[COMMUNISTCHINA]

So what sort of jobs are available with languages like Lisp and ACL2?

[mattman059]

I was Computer Science for a year at my school. I enjoyed the C++ programmin upto my Data Structures class (teacher was horrid). I changed my major to Information Systems because i can still program (VB, PHP,COBOL,Javascript,SQL Databases, PERL, etc) But i dont have to worry about the physics and electrical engineering aspects of being a CS major here. I enjoy the math and theory, i just dont enjoy the "You should already know this" of the engineering. All preference my friend, all preference. Do what you enjoy and you'll be happy whether you're a marginal programmer or the worlds best programmer.

[captainhampton]

Computer Science is such a broad field, don't be discouraged if one particular language causes some problems for now. There are many many others, I know lots of people who don't like Java.

[red_4900]

COMMUNISTCHINA, on 13 May, 2008 - 02:21 PM, said:

So what sort of jobs are available with languages like Lisp and ACL2?

with Lisp being one of the oldest programming languages around, I wonder why do I have to take the subject during my next semester. I would also like to ask the same question to those who have worked in this field for a long time.

This post has been edited by red_4900: 16 July 2008 - 09:19 AM

[captainhampton]

I seem to see LISP being fairly recurrent in other programming languages of today. I believe it does have some valuable things to teach as far as the basic construction of code, but as for teaching specifically LISP in a class, that may be a bit overboard for a relatively commercially unused language.

[red_4900]

I'm not too sure actually, but they're gonna teach Lisp under the Natural Language Processing class. I'm wondering if the engineering industry still uses Lisp?

ps : I have no idea what Natural Language Processing is. even the name is translated directly from Japanese (自然言語処理)

[mattman059]

Have you ever used a program like "Dragon Naturally Speaking" natural language processing (from what ive read) allows the computer to communicate in a more 'human-like' way

[red_4900]

....wtf is that?

[baavgai]

red_4900, on 17 Jul, 2008 - 07:42 AM, said:

Lisp under the Natural Language Processing class...

mattman059, on 18 Jul, 2008 - 05:51 PM, said:

Have you ever used a program like "Dragon Naturally Speaking" natural language processing...

red_4900, on 19 Jul, 2008 - 06:04 AM, said:

....wtf is that?

Lol. Lisp is bloody ancient and has tight ties to AI. Natural Language Processing is basically a form of AI. While grammar has rules, those rules are often contextual. Getting any kind of speech recognition program close to functional is a major technical challenge, even if you can figure out all the words.

The implication here is that the speech recognition product mentioned is written in Lisp. It could be, I dunno. What I do know it that AI research has completely failed to meet anyone's hopes and expectations. Over a quarter century and all we really know is thinking computers are hard to make. It one were to be completely cynical, one could blame some of the failure on the adherence to Lisp, a language very few modern production systems will even consider.

However, when it comes right down to it, projects and computer language should reasonably have nothing to do with one another. Most languages are general purpose and such languages can reasonably write anything that will run on a given hardware set. Lisp's greatest benefit would be showing you how to approach problems in a different, non procedural, way.