I've always found this weird. I think to be a good software developer it helps to know what's happening under the hood when you take an action. It certainly helps when you want to optimize memory access for speed etc.

I genuinely do know both sides of the coin. But I do know that the majority of my fellow developers at work most certainly have no clue about how computers work under the hood, or networking for example.

I find it weird because, to be good at software development (and I don't mean, following what the computer science methodology tells you, I mean having an idea of the best way to translate an idea into a logical solution that can be applied in any programming language, and most importantly how to optimize your solution, for example in terms of memory access etc) requires an understanding of the underlying systems. That if you write software that is sending or receiving network packets it certainly helps to understand how that works, at least to consider the best protocols to use.

But, it is definitely true.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago

and I don't mean, following what the computer science methodology tells you, I mean having an idea of the best way to translate an idea into a logical solution that can be applied in any programming language,

But that IS computer science.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I think software was a lot easier to visualise in the past when we had fewer resources.

Stuff like memory becomes almost meaningless when you never really have to worry about it. 64,000 bytes was an amount that made sense to people. You could imagine chunks of it. 64 billion bytes is a nonsense number that people can't even imagine.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 1 points 6 hours ago

When I was talking about memory, I was more thinking about how it is accessed. For example, exactly what actions are atomic, and what are not on a given architecture, these can cause unexpected interactions during multi-core work depending on byte alignment for example. Also considering how to make the most of your CPU cache. These kind of things.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 6 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

. I think to be a good software developer it helps to know what's happening under the hood when you take an action.

There's so many layers of abstractions that it becomes impossible to know everything.

Years ago, I dedicated a lot of time understanding how bytes travel from a server into your router into your computer. Very low-level mastery.

That education is now trivia, because cloud servers, cloudflare, region points, edge-servers, company firewalls... All other barriers that add more and more layers of complexity that I don't have direct access to but can affect the applications I build. And it continues to grow.

Add this to the pile of updates to computer languages, new design patterns to learn, operating system and environment updates...

This is why engineers live alone on a farm after they burn out.

It's not feasible to understand everything under the hood anymore. What's under the hood grows faster than you can pick it up.

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 2 points 6 hours ago

I'd agree that there's a lot more abstraction involved today. But, my main point isn't that people should know everything. But knowing the base understanding of how perhaps even a basic microcontroller works would be helpful.

Where I work, people often come to me with weird problems, and the way I solve them is usually based in low level understanding of what's really happening when the code runs.

[–] jdeath@lemm.ee 6 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

yeah i wish it was a requirement that you're nerdy enough to build your own computer or at least be able to install an OS before joining SWE industry. the non-nerds are too political and can't figure out basic shit.

[–] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net -2 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

This is like saying before you can be a writer, you need to understand latin and the history of language.

[–] daqu@feddit.org 9 points 12 hours ago

Before you can be a writer, you need to sharpen your own pencil.

[–] Narauko@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago

You should if you want to be a science writer or academic, which lets be honest is a better comparison here. If your job involves latin for names and descriptions then you probably should take at least a year or two of latin if you don't want to make mistakes here and there out of ignorance.