/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9790595]

This is so true

[Anonymous No.9790613]

>>9790595
well it's true.

[Anonymous No.9790615]

>>9790613
btw Fortran90fag here.

[Anonymous No.9790616]

>>>/g/

[Anonymous No.9790636]

>If you're too dumb for real science
>you're probably too dumb for programming too
Great insight.

[Anonymous No.9790651]

>>9790595
Programming is a walk in the park.

t. math grad
also, >>>/g/

[Anonymous No.9790655]

>>9790595
lol

[Anonymous No.9790666]

>>9790595
>thinks fizzbuzz is hard

>>>/g/tfo

[Anonymous No.9790672]

>>9790666
this is causing me pain to look at

[Anonymous No.9790681]

>>Clearly bait
The actual state of /sci/.

[Anonymous No.9790739]

Excuse me anon, but I noticed you included C but failed to include Jai

[Anonymous No.9790761]

>>9790615
c89fag with -pedantic here

[Anonymous No.9790767]

>>9790615
How important is learning fortran today and where can it be useful outside academia

[Anonymous No.9790772]

>>9790651
Your entry level industry standard is pretty easy. However, if you try to implement something nontrivial, like PAXOS, which attempts to solve the consensus problem among a set of unreliable processors, the programming actually gets tricky.

[Anonymous No.9790774]

>>9790767
Unless you do aerospace engineering or a similar field where no one wants to erase the legacy code, it's not super important. A lot of FORTRAN can be picked up by understanding how imperative programming works.

[Anonymous No.9790874]

>>9790595
i fuking hate the beginner programming course at my uni but that is due to the shit methods they teach us it.

they give us 4-6 tasks
2 weeks
and a shitty skript from 1998

and we are not allowed to deviated from the skript

[Anonymous No.9790963]

if you're programming with dependent types maybe lolz

[Anonymous No.9790979]

>>9790595
your image is literally saying that programming is a viable plan B for STEM failures, nice going dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.9791040]

>>9790666
Jesus christ
>>9790595
Programming is easy(c fag btw)

[Anonymous No.9791091]

>>9790595
Imagen never say hard or complex but headache.

Every language had new version,new frameworks,new libraries,no or shitty documentation,bad error message, language has every weird feature, group nerd figth each to other for every language don’t had X autism feature,people told you to update legacy Software,lack documentation,shitty code from others, stupids deadline and industry full snake oil sells.

Yes, programming and maintain real software products is huge headache.

[Anonymous No.9791122]

Programming, chemistry, physics and math all have a range of challenges from brainlet to inhuman, it depends on how much effort you are willing to put in.

The smart choice is of course chemistry because petrochemical engineering pays out the ass and failing that there is big pharma which is at about the same level as programming.

[Anonymous No.9791405]

>>9790595
It’s true in an application sense if you don’t plan out everything. If you just aimlessly start programming thinking you’re a hot shot then yeah, you’re gonna have a headache.

That’s true of all disciplines your fucking cashew

[Anonymous No.9791411]

>>9790636
You're logically inept if you think that means programming is easier.

If you're too dumb for theoretical physics, then you still might be able to be an engineer. The reverse is not true.

[Anonymous No.9791412]

>>9790979
It's clearly saying that it isn't a viable plan B.

[Anonymous No.9791447]

>>9791122
people attach emotional value to the names of their fields and fail to recognize that the seemingly most intractable problems within any of these fields tend to have common roots - or at the very least are similar in the sense of attempting to grasp something right beyond the bounds of what we currently know which is always inherently difficult. physics is probably the most _logistically_ difficult right now but I don't think that necessarily translates to some higher level of difficulty in terms of ingenuity.

[Anonymous No.9791455]

>>9790595
True.
Its not hard just half the work feels like time wasting, and its mind numbing. (C++, assembly fag here)

[Anonymous No.9791474]

wtf i just took this pic off of twitter and made this as a troll thread y'all needa relax

[Anonymous No.9791758]

>>9791474
Your way of writing is the most obnoxious and infuriating I've come upon so far. Congratulations you absolute fucking waste of space, you've managed to enrage me not by the content of your comment, which is just you being a little bitch boy about a subject you're too much of a brainlet to understand, but by its very form. Please fuck off.

[Anonymous No.9791763]

>>9791758
i go to eth zurich i aint no amerifat retard like you lmaooo

[Anonymous No.9791886]

Absolute BS
language design and programmers in general uses every trick imaginable to make coding high level and readily understandable.

Math is the exact opposite.

[Anonymous No.9791983]

>>9790595
>chemical engineer

[Anonymous No.9791990]

>>9791886
I'm absolutely convinced people who push mathematics to its limits deliberately obfuscate their methods because they have trouble understanding what they're thinking about. On top of that, I am also quite confident that theoretical physicists take their work so seriously because they're lost in imaginary dreamland rather than grounded in reality.

We just get lucky over the centuries that some of these frameworks coincidentally happen to actually resemble reality in some small fashion as to be useful. Throw enough shit at the wall and eventually we'll be able to build a rocket ship.

[Anonymous No.9792000]

>>9791886
I want to agree with you, but GCC black magic optimization and good graphics engines are legitimately mathematical sorcery.

[Anonymous No.9792132]

>>9790595
Its true
>Math:
>Read textbooks and papers
>think
>write it down

Programming
>dl compiler
>language cant do what you want
>dl libraries
>search documentations
>everything is inconsistent
>what you want to do isnt documented
>figure out from old stackexchange answers how to do it
>it works except in some special cases
>write a page of boilerplate and shit to get it to work
>find a bug
>library is made by retards
>get source and edit it
>source is crap
>spend a month trying to understand why (int)int&*++ + ++int**(int*)int is needed
>write your own method
>done
>nope, client wants to change something so fundamental you need to start from scratch
>one of the libraries needs a dependency that needs a dependency that is incompatible with another libraries dependencies
>the dependinsy hasnt been updated since 2003
>...

t. grad math student and freelance programmer

[Anonymous No.9792156]

>>9792132
But notice that there's no "think" step in programming.
That's why it's better suited for (and filled with) brainlets.

[Anonymous No.9792173]

>>9792156
Notice the OP isnt about thinking.

[Anonymous No.9792211]

>>9790666
What's the most efficient way to do this? Just read the string and assign a value to the position of each 1?

[Anonymous No.9792233]

>>9792156
This tbqh

[Anonymous No.9792255]

>>9792211
Convert.ToInt64(binaryString, 2)

[Anonymous No.9792264]

>>9790595
I mean they all give you headaches in their own ways. If you haven't tried programming something that was out of your breadth it's the same as a business major who took a Business Calculus class and said Mathematics was easy

T. Applied Maths+EE grad

[Anonymous No.9792282]

>>9791411
>claim about broad fields comparing to other broad fields.
Good that you bring theoretical physics up because there are at least some subsets of programming that are indeed easier than th phys, while some parts of com sci can arguably be harder (cathegory theory, mostly. But then again, is that CS or is it pure math?).

So the anon you replied to is right: there are parts of these fields that are easier than others, and if you are dumb for a giving plateau in one field you are too dumb for the same plateau of difficulty in the other.

[Anonymous No.9792289]

>>9792282
The category theory used in compsci is extremely basic compared to real category theory in math, and cathegory theory is used a lot in theoretical physics as well in things like TQFT, more than in comp sci.

[Anonymous No.9792306]

>>9792289
well my point still stands, dumb people will find anything difficult, period.

[Anonymous No.9792336]

>>9791447
This, dont fall for the "follow your dreams" meme

[Anonymous No.9792360]

>>9790595
>no haskell in pic

[Anonymous No.9792374]

>>9791763
Get the fuck out of my school, degenerate shitskin.

[Anonymous No.9792539]

>>9792374
once I finish my drsc nigga

[Anonymous No.9792680]

>>9792211
Assuming it’s just a simple bit value (read: not a two’s complement number) you can consider the rightmost position to have the lowest significant value and leftmost to have the highest. Advance backwards from the index of the final character to index 0. If you see a one, add 1 bit shifted (shortcut for multiplication on powers of 2) n - 1 times (assuming our first iteration is the 0th iteration).

You can write this in like 5 lines.

[Anonymous No.9792720]

>>9790595
It really isn't
The hardest programs I have had to write were probably the mathematical ones where I knew 0 of the theory. Getting really good at the maths helps more than making any shitty gimmicky program I have ever written.

[Anonymous No.9792749]

>>9792680
Correction, I meant n - iteration

[Anonymous No.9792765]

>>9792720
Getting in good with the mathematics launches you into making the deep magic sorcery, from like xor swap to the inverse square root fast algo

[Anonymous No.9792775]

Computer science != being a codemonkey

[Anonymous No.9792926]

>>9792000
which is almost completely compartmentalized. typical Api/compiler user doesn't even have to know the implememtation. The magic of abstraction

[Anonymous No.9792933]

>>9792765
>inverse square root fast algo
>Still programmer believe Newton method is advance math.

[Anonymous No.9792944]

>>9790595
Except the headache is for a completely different reason.

[Anonymous No.9792967]

>>9792765
>inverse square root
so just squaring?

[Anonymous No.9792974]

>>9792933
That’s not the math I’m talking about
The precision from exploiting arbitrary n-bit “magic” floating point number gives you based on a few bit shift, casts, and some simple arithmetic is a pretty classic example of mastery over the machine.

The story and awe is that an esoteric understanding of computer architecture can cop you out of doing expensive operations you brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9792975]

>>9792967
>>9792933
Not him but there is a famously incomprehensible inverse square root algorithm in quake which is also really good

[Anonymous No.9792977]

>>9792933
The magic line from the algo comes long before the Newtonian method and you know it.

[Anonymous No.9792983]

>>9792974
https://betterexplained.com/articles/understanding-quakes-fast-inverse-square-root/

Very basic compute architecture and very basic math,looks Fenwick Tree.

https://brilliant.org/wiki/fenwick-tree/

[Anonymous No.9792985]

>>9792975
It’s not incomprehensible, but it is some HAKMEM deep magic bullshit that made 90s shooters lighting engines useful. The cool part is that the first guess using the magic number is a very clever guess for a Newton-Raphson. Pic related

[Anonymous No.9792987]

>>9791886
>high level
>readily understandable
Sometimes (read, really fucking often) making stuff more high level just makes it more confusing.

[Anonymous No.9792990]

>>9792983
Yeah, none of the math on display is more than some simple algebra, but your average “programming is easy because the libraries exist” scientific programming from a student in another field wouldn’t think of it because most don’t think in terms of optimizing out something like that. The fact that this exists and is in a long list of HAKMEM and AI memo tricks is pretty cool, don’t you think?

[Anonymous No.9792993]

>>9792987
>Everything is is object dae
>Manual garbage collection is hard
>The virtual machine is the best invention since the oscilloscope

Can you tell I hate java?

[Anonymous No.9793003]

>>9792990
Enjoy it
http://graphics.stanford.edu/~seander/bithacks.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_Four_Russians
https://www5.in.tum.de/~bader/publikat/matmult.pdf
http://blog.christianperone.com/2015/08/googles-s2-geometry-on-the-sphere-cells-and-hilbert-curve/

[Anonymous No.9793012]

>>9790595
programmers deal with using tools made by other programmers (and ultimately, engineers)
chemists and physicists deal with the laws of nature. it's a qualitative difference. the domain of programmers is man-made, which means it's messy and imperfect, but also malleable by its practitioner.

[Anonymous No.9793017]

>>9792975
>baby's first deep magic
lmao
also, it's not incomprehensible, it's just not documented
>tard writes obscure code with a snarky comment
>"WOAH DUDE I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THIS SHIT IT SURELY IS HARD"

On the other hand, math is possibly the best documented field in all science, meanwhile people still struggle in understanding these well-documented concepts.
That is the definition of hard.

[Anonymous No.9793556]

>>9792926
...well duh. I was speaking on the design and subsequent low abstraction optimization close to the machine.
Why would I be talking about employing the use of these tools?

[Anonymous No.9793591]

>>9792132
More like
>Language can't do what you want
>pick a new language
>spend 5 minutes on codecademy reviewing syntax for new language
>continue on as normal

Programming is just a series of concepts that you string together to accomplish tasks. Given that you must mathematically prove algorithms and require math to determine efficiencies, you really can't argue that muh CS is harder than math when it relies so heavily on it

[Anonymous No.9793657]

>>9791763
>>9792374
Guys, how competitive is entry to ETH Zurich as an international student? I'm in the US right now at a mediocre school.

Could I attend as an English speaker? Their website is rather minimalist.

[Anonymous No.9793660]

>>9793657
>posting memes from Facebook
no chance

[Anonymous No.9793663]

>>9793660
Pic was clearly unrelated, you homosexual

[Anonymous No.9793668]

>>9793660
>implying it wasn't posted ironically

[Anonymous No.9793686]

>>9793657
Only if you are a chink.

[Anonymous No.9794540]

>>9793591
You have to prove the correctness of algorithms in computer science.

[Anonymous No.9794598]

>>9790595
programming makes you realize hell is other people

[Anonymous No.9794608]

[Anonymous No.9794611]

>>9792156
good program starts with good design

[Anonymous No.9794614]

>>9794611
also pic related

[Anonymous No.9794615]

>>9792680
int i = Integer.parseInt(string, 2);

One line

[Anonymous No.9794628]

>>9791990
I kinda agree with you, most of modern math and physics is basically going on a really abstract tangent that is most likely fundamentally flawed but no one actually bothers going back to the basics to figure out what's actually happening, it's all about surfing on the top of the wave of abstraction without looking back

[Anonymous No.9794631]

>>9792211
the biggest inefficiency here is string comparisons in the switch statement

char s[] = "010110"; //
int val = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 6; i++) {
val *= 10;
if (s == '1')
val++;
}

so even this loop should be more efficient
iirc it's called Horner scheme, you can easily modify it for any base

[Anonymous No.9794663]

>>9794598
What would the world be like if Sartre were alive today

[Anonymous No.9795008]

>>9792132
>nothing about architecture
>nothing about design
That's why you're unemployed, mate.

[Anonymous No.9795031]

>>9794631
>>>/g/et the fuck out and never return here, code monkey.

constexpr int getDecEquivalentBin(const char * str){
int result = 0;
while(*str != '\0') result = *str++ - '0' + result<<1;
return result
}

[Anonymous No.9795141]

>>9794615
Without using libraries you dumbass. For interviews or proof of concept questions, the idea is to give a solution, not defer to a library that solves it for you.

Even doing it from scratch is easy

[Anonymous No.9796128]

>>9795008
why did you think I was unemployed? and were talking about programming, which includes codemonkey work, which never includes thinking about architecture