/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.7667630]

>I'm studying physics.
>I like programming a lot, specially videogames and physics simulations.

Are physicist well regarded as programmers by the companies? I don't see myself as a teacher nor I'm that good to be a researcher.

[Anonymous No.7667662]

Better than shit CS majors surely

[Anonymous No.7667708]

A physics degree is just as good as a CS degree for systems analysis, so there's that.
When you get down to the meat and potatoes of it, anyone can be a programmer, just like anyone can be a writer. However, as it is with writing, not everybody will necessarily want to read or use what you write.

I'm pretty sure every STEM has to take at least basic programming these days, right?

[Anonymous No.7667727]

Most (Pure/physics-based/any non-business) Math majors at my school are probably better PROGRAMMERS than most of the CS kids (granted, CS/Math share first 1-2 years of courses) at my school, except that they don't know much about computer architecture/OS/specializations, but these same Math majors get standard software/dev jobs at the same top tier companies as other CS majors..Now, you can argue causation and correlation but programming in itself isn't something special, but rather a hobby that's easy to pick up.

[Anonymous No.7667868]

>>7667630
>>Are physicist well regarded as programmers by the companies

Yes, one of the most common jobs for physics majors is being a coder.

[Anonymous No.7667949]

On a bachelors alone you aren't gonna teach dick.

If you get a PhD, you could become a badass quant at a hedgefund and do programming every day. Work on simulations for options price dynamics and/or risk modeling... you'd be better than any cs major at those things cause most CS majors suck dick at C++ and have no experience writing real simulations or doing any real-time programming (the ones that are good at it are good after putting in some serious work because most CS curricula teach java, java java, a little bit of python, and a little bit of C with, maybe, an even smaller bit of C++.

[Anonymous No.7667955]

>>7667630
Oh God no. Physicists (and most other scientists) do write lots and lots of code for simulations and analysis. Lots and lots of terrible, terrible self-taught code that makes actual programmers cry. If you're a particle physicist, it's even worse, because it's probably in FORTRAN that has very likely been built on top of ancient code designed to run on punchcards.

[Anonymous No.7668056]

>>7667955
>>>/g/o back to where you came from and never return

[Anonymous No.7669643]

bump, this interests me

[Anonymous No.7669663]

>>7667955
>talking shit about FORTRAN
Just another CS autist getting mad someone else got his job and doesn't give a fuck about autistic programming dogmas.

[Anonymous No.7669819]

>>7668056
But he's right. There's a whole set of coding standards that are ignored by self-taught coders, which makes project maintenance hell for real programmers when they enter the business because they can't get a research grant and need some money. Sure, the algorithms are probably better than most CS grads, but shit implementations cause security holes and fuck up the job for the rest of us because >>7669663 can't be fucked to follow standards and provide proper documentation and lifecycle maintenance/is immune to criticism.

[Anonymous No.7669833]

>>7667630
Honestly it doesn't matter what you majored in for undergrad when it comes to programming.

What really matters is that you are serious about programming and are willing to devote your life to constantly improving your craft.

Some books for the aspiring (serious) programmer:

>Design Patterns (Gang of Four)
These design patterns are in use extensively in the professional OOP world.

>Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
This book can serve as a general introduction to algorithmic problem solving (yes, you should actually learn algorithms and data structures) and functional programming.

Any algorithms book.
>Introduction to Algorithms (Cormen et al.)

These books are often considered memes on /g/, much like Spivak is for calculus.

If you work through these three books in particular and then more niche subjects depending on where you end up in industry, I assure you that you will be more qualified than the majority of programmers on the planet.

>BS in computer science speaking, working in industry. Not retarded and love CS theory.

[Anonymous No.7669834]

You can probably land a job sure.

But as others are saying, it's pretty much impossible for you to know best coding practices. Most CS majors only have a vague idea of best practices when they graduate.

We deal with this at work all the time with interns. You get this really smart kids who are largely self taught, and are generally very clever about solving problems. Which in a lot of cases is a bad thing. 90% of the time you don't want to have a "clever" solution. You just want something that isn't horribly inefficient, and is simple to read/understand. Stringing together "clever" code very quickly lands you in spaghetti land.

[Anonymous No.7670212]

>>7669819
>self-taught coders

There are two types of self taught coders: type 1 that knows way more than 99.95% of CS major graduates and study the subject thoroughly, and type 2 that just learns how to code a while loop and call functions and thinks that's all there is to programming. Hiring managers love to hire type 1 guys and use phone screening to quickly filter out type 2 trash.

Of course, physics majors aren't going to walk out of school with all knowledge you need to get a programming job by virtue of them completing their major. But the knowledge isn't very hard to learn especially for a physics (or math) major, so it's very conceivable (and indeed often is the case) that a physics major can teach himself up to the level of a type 1 within a year or two of self study.

>>7669833
>These books are often considered memes on /g/

No one considers CLRS and GoF meme books. SICP is a meme book as other books do each subject it covers far better.

>If you work through these three books in particular and then more niche subjects depending on where you end up in industry, I assure you that you will be more qualified than the majority of programmers on the planet.

I think you should study a bit more before you can claim to have a good foundation. You should at least do all the subjects under the fundamental section on the CS&E wikia page along with a bit of networking, parallel coding, and some more SE topics beyond GoF.

http://4chan-science.wikia.com/wiki/Computer_Science_and_Engineering

[Anonymous No.7671052]

>>7667630
>Are physicist well regarded as programmers by the companies? I don't see myself as a teacher nor I'm that good to be a researcher.
Sure.

After my PhD in physics I worked as a researcher for a few years but when that didn't look like paying the bills and student loans had to be paid I went to industry as a programmer.

Methodology and the latest buzz words are not hard and as a physicist you will see problems from a different angle than most pure programmers.

You will also have an advantage in low level programming interfacing to sensors since knowledge of the physics behind that you work on will be an advantage.

There is still one problem no matter your background: when you approach 40 companies will consider you too old and try to fire you. Most of them do.

[Anonymous No.7671255]

>>7670212
Eh. For a non-computer science coder who wants to go into industry I think the three books I listed are perfect.

You do -not- need to learn computer science to program. Only the most relevant topics such as algorithms and data structures (CLRS) and design patterns (since industry eats this shit up). I included SICP because the book serves as a good introduction to computer science in general.

If you're interested in programming you -might- consider learning about computer architecture, OS, networking, compilers, etc. Which is the core CS curriculum, but it is by -no means- required and will have substantially lower returns than reading the three books I listed.

[Anonymous No.7671262]

>>7671255
To clarify, this is for a programmer who wants to become a "good programmer". Most software engineers have never read any of these books, they don't care about reading these books, and they get their experience from solving problems at work.

[Anonymous No.7671282]

>>7671255

You do if you don't want to be a retarded webdev or a app monkey

[Anonymous No.7671294]

>>7669834
From your post, I'm gleaning that what actually teaches you best practices is neither school nor self-education, but rather working in the actual workplace.

[Anonymous No.7671329]

As a physics undergrad I can confirm you need a lot of programming. I'm doing my final project right now and the PhDs and professors in my group use python extensively, as well as MATLAB for menial tasks and C++ for the big gun simulations. Note that we only got educated in MATLAB so everyone expects you to learn the other languages within a week or two. The level they expect you to operate on is much higher than CS or whatever joke degree they call informatics these days, where you get semester courses on specific programming languages, where in my physics labs they expect you to be able to tag along from autodidactic skills alone.

So yeah.

[Anonymous No.7671339]

>>7671329
look at you hot shot

just because your school has a shit-tier cs program doesn't mean cs is shit.

[Anonymous No.7671345]

>>7669819
>Sure, the algorithms are probably better than most CS grads

For instance, the reason those old FORTRAN codes are still around is that they've been optimized to hell and back for decades. For speedy math, you can't do much better than hand-optimized barely-above-assembly designed to perform complex mathematical operations on computers with '70s resource constraints.

[Anonymous No.7671352]

>>7671329
>The level they expect you to operate on is much higher than CS

Mind elaborating?

[Anonymous No.7671356]

>>7671339
No need to be upset, all I did was share my experience. I know CS undergrads personally so I have a pretty good idea what they're like and what their skill level is. CS is piss easy in general, just look at /g/.

[Anonymous No.7671358]

>>7671294
Yes. This is true of most things, actually, which is why work experience is so important on resumes.

[Anonymous No.7671360]

>>7671352
As in: if you don't master the language in two weeks they'll kick your dumb ass out.

[Anonymous No.7671519]

>>7667955
yes while this is very true (i'm a physicist and write self-taught terrible code) physicists ARE well regarded by companies (which, besides, also often produce terrible code) and becoming a good programmer needs lots of experience and learning anyway. As a physicist you should have the skills to learn how to write good code relatively easy. Just don't try to get by and ignore the rules.

[Anonymous No.7671584]

>>7670212
This so much

I know a guy with a degree in art management. His actual job was supposed to be designing website layouts. He taught himself coding and 9/10 times he could code better that the persons who was supposed to actually code the site, so they would get fired and he would end up cleaning up their mess and doing it right. From doing that he got hired to design the ui for an automated fill out yourself form to help cut down on Va benefits times. Again coded better than the people who were hired for that purpose and ended up cleaning up their messes, he was deemed "critical to the project" so he pretty much couldn't quit or get fired. After that he started his own company developing the health care equivalent of a fico score based on all the things you can improve about yourself.

Tl;Dr if you learn to do things the right way, hold yourself to high standards, and don't let people's moronic bullshit slide, people take notice and good things happen.

[Anonymous No.7671593]

>>7671339
>just because your school has a shit-tier cs program doesn't mean cs is shit.

I wish this meme would die.

>just because your school has a shit-tier women studies program doesn't mean women studies is shit.

[Anonymous No.7671613]

>>7671294
>>7669834
So what I'm getting is that brutal cunning is more important than cunning brutality.

[Anonymous No.7671672]

>>7671052
>There is still one problem no matter your background: when you approach 40 companies will consider you too old and try to fire you. Most of them do.
Care to elaborate?

>>7671345
And new fortran code supports and includes OOP while being as neat as a regular language. It's not some arcane sorcery. You could even write a game on it if you had the right UI libraries.

[Anonymous No.7671688]

>>7671360
>master the language in two weeks
>means learn the syntax to the point where he can read his fellow retards garbage code
>thinks he isn't retarded

[Anonymous No.7671845]

>>7671329
>The level they expect you to operate on is much higher than CS or whatever joke degree they call informatics these days
Just curious, are referring to two separate things or did informatics become CS?

[Anonymous No.7671956]

>>7671345
This is not true. The reason FORTRAN got used is because it has strange rules about pointer aliasing which optimised certain kinds of operations on data with a linear structure in memory (this also exists in other languages now and for most use-cases hardware today is sufficiently powerful that it doesn't matter). FORTRAN is largely used because of inertia.

If you want to write videogames or simulations then you should do exactly those things and dive into the culture of programming. Physicists are smart but a fantastic physics education is not a substitute for a fantastic computer science education.

[Anonymous No.7672264]

>>7671329
>The level they expect you to operate on is much higher than CS or whatever joke degree they call informatics these days
>Uses python

[Anonymous No.7672267]

CS holders are just sour as fuck that companies are actively seeking non CS majors since they bring more skills and have similar or better programming knowledge. 199 in 200 CS majors can't actually code and that is a fact

[Anonymous No.7672334]

>>7671956
>fantastic computer science education

That's an oxymoron

[Anonymous No.7672335]

>>7671688
Literally none of that makes sense, just shows how spiteful you are for having made poor life choices.

[Anonymous No.7672338]

>>7672264
The point he was trying to made was obviously about CS majors taking a semester to learn python while in his group you learn it in two weeks or you can gtfo. I bet that time also includes researching and gathering data so yeah, that's putting quite some pressure on it as well.

[Anonymous No.7672344]

>>7672338
Can confirm, within 1 week of learning python we add an assignment to make a programme that loaded a preset file for x,y,delta x and delta y. Check the integrity of the file using IOErrors, IndexErrors, ValueErrors and sys.exits. Load the data into arrays, plot a graph and find the line of best fit. Probably not that difficult of a task but to do it with one week of coding was horrible

[Anonymous No.7672351]

>>7672338

This. The pacing of CS courses are abysmal. You can easily do every course in CS in less than a quarter of the time and do even more than they cover while you're at it.

InB4 "yeah at a shit school maybe", this business major did the whole MIT curriculum + electives in under a year
http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/mit-challenge/

[Anonymous No.7672371]

>>7672351

After going through university I feel I could do the same with most fields. Maybe not four years crammed into one, but its weird how incredibly fast I can learn concepts in unrelated fields now compared to when I was a dumb fresman.

Not taking away this guys achievement, just saying its not a fair comparison.

[Anonymous No.7672410]

>>7672351
>ten hours a day at the beginning
Did he not have a job?

[Anonymous No.7672412]

>>7672410
Never mind
>writer and small business owner
I'd delete the post but 4chan makes you wait like four hours now.

[Anonymous No.7672421]

>>7672410
He's a business major, what do you expect?

[Anonymous No.7672422]

>>7672412
Fuck, even MIT's CS courses look abysmal to me.
I was seriously looking at stats anyway.

[Anonymous No.7672423]

>>7672421
And a small business owner, so he's using that degree!
Probably does all the coursework during normal working hours and has his kids man the till.

[Anonymous No.7672538]

>>7672344
that sounds like 1 day to me (or did you program the plotting/graphical output yourself?)

[Anonymous No.7672568]

>>7672538
Yes, we weren't allowed to use any packages what so ever

[Anonymous No.7672582]

>>7667630
Do companies even give a shit about your education after a couple of jobs.
Every time i do a job interview now their way more focused on what i did on my previous jobs than actual education, not to say they dont take it under considerations.

[Anonymous No.7672588]

>>7672582
Nope in order of importance:
Relevant experience
Experience
Attitude
Degree classification
Degree title

[Anonymous No.7672607]

>>7672568
how did you manage the graphical output?

[Anonymous No.7672615]

>>7672598

[Anonymous No.7672989]

>>7672335
Let me make an analogy for you since you obviously can't logically deduce what I was saying.

>college student
>has to learn calculus in 1 week
>"masters" the subject in 1 week
>>oblivious to the fact that he's completely retarded

[Anonymous No.7673350]

>>7672989
>calculus is analogous to a programming language
Nah, you're just a low IQ sperg. Don't be so sad about it though, we still need you to make menial routines in some big software companies their programs I guess.

[Anonymous No.7673388]

>>7672989

You can learn calculus 1 within a week.

>Calculus classes meet 3 hours a week with 0.5~1 hour of homework/study
>Classes run for 3 months * 4 weeks
>equivalent to 1 42~48 hour work week

[Anonymous No.7673428]

>>7669833
>>7671255

what's your experience in programming?

[Anonymous No.7673430]

>>7671356
>implying they're mostly CS grads and not hobbyists

[Anonymous No.7673433]

Short answer:
No.

Long answer:
Your programming background respectively your capabilty to deal with and or implement solving methods for differential equations representing models is not sufficient. This kind of job requires deep knowledge of simulation methods which you won't have with a degree in physics and a litzle bit of programming skills.

[Anonymous No.7673435]

>>7673350
You literally think you can master a programming language in 2 weeks.

That's how I know you're a complete retard.

As with all subjects worthy of study, novices believe they know it all, masters realize how little they actually know.

[Anonymous No.7673437]

>>7673428
I've worked for a fortune 500 company and I'm currently at a startup.

[Anonymous No.7673597]

>>7673435
What he was aiming at was that they get to the same level of proficiency as CS majors within two weeks as CS major get within a semester. He's obviously not talking about becoming some magical wizard of python within that time span.

[Anonymous No.7673722]

>>7671352
not him.

I guy that is taking a master in physics in my University made the most efficient simulation in the wolrd of light jumping like water.
One of my teachers made a simulation of a galaxy being formed.

None of them learned to code in the university, both of them just learneded it cause it is a very important tool. There is a shit ton of problems that cannot be solved with a pencil and a piece of paper.

It is starting to end now... but being a Physicist and a good coder 15 years ago could lend you amazing job prospects even in the academic world. Now its starting to be a requirement.

[Anonymous No.7673730]

>>7672335

this >>7673722

Being "only a coder" is over... you either are in the top 20% or every normie will be there to get you.

[Anonymous No.7673764]

>>7673597
That's correct, a dedicated hobbyist can reach the same level of programming ability in 2 weeks as a CS major would in 1 semester.

So, the question is whether or not a software company wants to hire someone who is essentially the equivalent of a CS student who dropped out after 1 semester.

[Anonymous No.7674275]

>>7673764
The real question is whether a) you actually want to be a code monkey for the rest of your life and b) you degree is worth a damn if any run of the mill faglord can learn it in a couple of weeks. Not just talking about Python anymore. The math in CS is baby tier up to the point even a civil engineer would be ashamed.

[Anonymous No.7674383]

>>7672588
>Degree classification
That means "GED/HS/AA/BS/Masters/PhD, right?

[Anonymous No.7674389]

>>7673722
>I guy
>in the wolrd of light jumping like water
>teachers
>learneded
>cause

[Anonymous No.7674427]

>>7674383

No it's First class, Second class (upper or lower), Third, Ordinary degree (poll), fail.

The US equivalent would be GPA and/or level of honors (summa cum laude, magna cum laude)

[Anonymous No.7674449]

>>7672344
So like 5 lines of Scipy?

[Anonymous No.7674461]

Can stats get me good career prospects? This just seems like the best thread to ask. Glutted? Empty? Being replaced by software?

[Anonymous No.7674468]

You are seriously delusional if you think scientific programming is anything like professional code development or CS.

You are essentially bragging about being able to use a high level calculator correctly. Everyone in STEM does it even fucking biologists.

Not that I was expecting more from fuckwits who sincerely believe they majored in everythingology and not baby's first fundamentals.

>>7672338
You can learn Python syntax and it's scientific computing libraries in a day, that doesn't mean you understand Python and you sure as hell aren't doing anything close to what CS majors are doing.

[Anonymous No.7674503]

>>7674449
>>7672568
Came to about 300 lines I think

[Anonymous No.7674723]

>>7674468
Anybody could learn what it takes to write clean and maintainable code in a weekend. After that its just practice. Seriously, just read Clean Code or Code Complete diligently, always keep it in the back of your head, and you'll be well on your way.

Learning numerical methods and numerical analysis for linear algebra, partial differential equations, optimization, as well as all the actual physics you will be applying these to, will take a lot more effort and time and a hell of a lot more than a handful of books.

Not saying there aren't respectable software engineers like Martin Fowler and Linus Torvalds, but they are by far the minority. Most CS graduates working sofware dev jobs are happy just hacking away until "it works" without any real protocol other than maybe using version control. Their idea of "always learning to improve their craft" is dicking around with this week's trendiest framework or library or writing a shitty app with whatever language is heralded as the new silver bullet that week. It's not reading papers on new architectural patterns, and cutting edge algorithms.

[Anonymous No.7674742]

>>7674723
>Seriously, just read Clean Code
Oh god no.

[Anonymous No.7674755]

>mfw the amount of shit talking on CS programs on this shitstain of a board
85% of you would probably drop out at MIT, Stanford, Caltech or even Waterloo

hth

[Anonymous No.7674833]

>>7674742
Some people like it. Some people prefer Code Complete or Pragmatic Programmer. Just pick one and put it into practice.

[Anonymous No.7674842]

>>7667949
I'm about to finish my math degree. If learned to program in several languages but focus mostly on python and have been using it a lot to write simulations and various math tools for myself. I'm hoping to do something along those lines after I graduate. Would it be better for me to start focusing on C++ more?

[Anonymous No.7674846]

>>7674755
I did undergrad CS at one of the schools listed as #9 by us news & world report, and I wish I had majored in something else.

Seriously, undergrad CS is shit, unless you do a bunch of extra coursework not required most CS majors would be too scared to take.

Did my MS in Mathematical Finance and got my ass kicked by stochastic calculus. I really wish I had done EE, CE (cause at least they learn a ton of C/C++, whereas I had to learn C++ by myself cause the curriculum was 95% java), Physics, Stats, or Math. I took a graduate level algorithms class and a graduate level complexity theory class as electives and they were actually interesting, but the people kicking ass in those classes were also taking them as electives and were graduate Operations Research students. The actual CS students were all bitching "waaa, but I hate theory. This is my least favorite class" all semester long.

[Anonymous No.7674947]

>>7671672
Sure.

Programming as a profession has transitioned from an origin of being something of a science and an art, to our times where it is a routine semi skilled craft. Expressions like "code monkeys" is but one indicator.

So programmers are considered fungible and fit for outsourcing to far off countries. And salaries should be low low low.

Add to this the fashion troubles. From C to C++ to Java to Python etc. Companies like to be fashionably "advanced" so they need the right programmers. And rather to retrain they prefer to chuck out the old (and tooooo expensive) guys and get some new fresh meat from school to their grinders with the right skills.

So you get these weird cases where Ericsson saw fit to dump all over 38, a rare well published case.

Now many companies get burned by outsourcing to India and then go in-sourcing again but they will not talk much about this failure. And salaries should stay at Indian levels.

Problem number 2 is that programmers look at Google level salaries not realising this represents the extreme outlier. And promptly goes to the meat grinder.

[Anonymous No.7674953]

>>7671345
>optimized
Not true. Have you worked in labs at all?? Reality is that new functions are made by new grad students to solve their problems in time to get a PhD before starving to death. Optimization is not an issue at all.

So if you start looking through the program you will see it is a serious case of the snowball effect: new layers are added over time and nothing removed. So you get 15 different implementations of FFT - by hand. And if you remove anything the whole thing starts misbehaving in mysterious ways. So noone dares editing old parts. They just add new layers. And thus the snowball grows.

[Anonymous No.7674959]

>>7674468
>doing anything close to what CS majors are doing
You mean jacking off to my little pony cartoons and writing a little python here and there? Please. CS is worth jack shit.

[Anonymous No.7675046]

>>7673597
First off, this is simply inaccurate.

And secondly, he literally said master.

[Anonymous No.7675081]

>>7675046
To elaborate more:

Some physics majors will be great at programming and may in fact learn the ropes on a tight schedule and be better than many CS majors.

Conversely, most physics majors will not.

Similarly, many CS majors will be leagues above the aforementioned physics major. However, most people (note I said people) are average, not exceptional.

[Anonymous No.7675155]

the only physics majors that are good at programming are the hobbyists or the extremely smart ones that can do anything

the rest learn in those "intro computational physics" courses where you simulate projectile motion and shit, and very few are good

[Anonymous No.7676053]

>>7674959
your ignorance is showing, you just proved his point

[Anonymous No.7676073]

>>7675081
199 out of 200 cs majors can't code fizzbuzz

[Anonymous No.7676080]

Maybe this is just me, because I go to a decent school.
But aren't most CS programs shit?
Once you reach the upper division classes, that specialize in certain fields of computing. That's where the real stuff happens?

I don't know.

[Anonymous No.7676086]

>>7676080
>because I go to a decent school

Your school is shit.

[Anonymous No.7676280]

>>7676086
This is /sci/'s own "OP is a fag" isn't it.

[Anonymous No.7676282]

>>7676073
>199 out of 200 cs majors can't code fizzbuzz
I can't believe this.

[Anonymous No.7676283]

>>7676282
I hope it's true though because that makes my job prospects improve enormously.

[Anonymous No.7676293]

>>7676280

I have spent more time than is sane looking at various school curricula and there are no decent schools for undergraduate CS. The only thing that comes close to a passable undergrad education are CSE/EECS programs.

[Anonymous No.7676299]

>>7676282
http://blog.codinghorror.com/why-cant-programmers-program/
http://imranontech.com/2007/01/24/using-fizzbuzz-to-find-developers-who-grok-coding/

[Anonymous No.7676305]

>>7676299
>"Write a loop that counts from 1 to 10" or "What's the number after F in hexadecimal?"
I've taken one class and I can do that. What the hell is going on? Who passes these fuckers?

[Anonymous No.7676310]

>>7676305
Forget class, actually, I think this may have been day one for me.

[Anonymous No.7676325]

>>7672267
They also can't speak plain English to their bosses. They talk like their mouths are filled with dicks.

[Anonymous No.7676335]

So this is what it looks like when /g/ and /sci/ sperg out with each other. This looks like a fight you see in a small yellow school bus.
>hurr Wresting is read
>You're a faggot
>BRWARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
This is what I gather from this thread.
Also I fucking hate coding. Its boring. I coded pong and other programs. The fucking field is boring as shit. I can tolerate if its for a science field as bio, physics, or Chem. But code monkey stuff is boring. If you want to code major in bio/math, physics/bio, or math/physics. The coding is much better than coding the next gay app or recursion for a website.

[Anonymous No.7676434]

>>7676305
It's a false statistic.

[Anonymous No.7676475]

>>7667630
Physicists are slow programmers. In my video game company I only hire them for specialised work like writing shaders actual gameplay code and physics code is done by auto didactic programmers because they get a lot more done in a lot less time. Physicist can be utilised for shaders and engine code but never ever have I seen a physicist writing gameplay code.