Comments by "Vitaly L" (@vitalyl1327) on "Travis Media" channel.

  1. Knowledge is transient and unimportant. The real reason for the difference between the educated and uneducated ones is in structure and rigour.
    131
  2. Well, this kind of people will never work in, say, finance, so they have no chance of getting their minds violated irreversibly by the certain APL descendants that are so popular im algo-trading.
    28
  3.  @Rexvideowow  key word here is *engineers*.
    17
  4. ​ @tazanteflight8670 Rust literally shares the same compiler backend with C and C++. Wtf are you talking about?
    13
  5.  @AndreiGeorgescu-j9p  how will you explain the fact that most of the CRUD coders have no idea what A.C.I.D. is?
    9
  6. The great developers ARE teaching. There are lectures by Abelson and Sussman available online, along with many others.
    7
  7.  @Mattot-qi9qr  firstly, you're likely in a very sub-par course anyway, and, secondly, why are you even talking about CS? CS graduates are supposed to be fundamental scientists, not engineers. You should have tried an SE course instead.
    7
  8. Ever heard of Horizon / Post Office scandal? This is what happens when bad developers are unchecked and unregulated. Also, your users suffer every day, faced by bugs and glitches of your otherwise probably benign "websites". This should not be dismissed either. High time software development is regulated. And I'm not even a CS graduate, I'm an engineer (as in, a proper, regulated mecatronics engineer).
    7
  9. Since when "cloud computing" is a science?!?
    6
  10.  @TravisMedia  I really hope that the use of the word "engineer" will get properly regulated, like it is in many countries in relation to the traditional engineering. All those "self-educated" are giving software engineering a bad reputation, and it's high time the industry is getting regulated and cleansed of the impostors.
    6
  11. ​ @fabianpetersen2452 people with CS degrees should not call themselves engineers either, they are supposed to be scientists.
    5
  12. And why would you need a website? Do not trust Travis, he does not know what he's talking about.
    5
  13.  @Calupp  another impostor who believe he's an engineer now,.after some udemy courses? Pathetic.
    5
  14.  @TravisMedia  oh, I'm an elitist now by not wanting to drive over a bridge built by a "self-taught" uncertified engineer. I'm an "elitist" for not wanting to be treated by a self-educated doctor who probably went to a couple of medical boot-camps and know how to administer an enema now (and nothing else). Now, why software engineering must be different? Why do we all have to suffer the results of work of the self-taughts? There are hundreds of thousands of utter trash developers who should have never touched a keyboard. I don't care what they can "attest" to, but in order to solve the abysmal quality problem in this industry they all need to be booted out of it. Yes, their employers may not like it, companies never like to be regulated and to be required to provide some minimal standard of quality of service. Yet in all other domains they are regulated. High time we do the same for software.
    5
  15. It does not matter how and where did you learn. What matters is who will be responsible when your code goes south. This is the difference between the wild west software development and properly regulated fields such as civil engineering and medicine.
    4
  16.  @santos8146  you're funny. Let me guess - a junior, likely web with zero experience in anything else? What pays is whatever YOU chose to solve your problems. For you and you team to select the right language you need to discuss and find out which one is a better fit. But it is so cute when unexperienced juniors lile you try to pose as adults and babble hilarious nonsense, pretending to understand the real world.
    4
  17. Being an engineer, by definition, is having legally binding personal responsibility for what you're doing. Nothing about the status.
    4
  18. @ as long as you're luring unsuspecting innocent people into career they have absolutely no reason to be in, someone have to counter your grift.
    4
  19.  @m13v2  exactly gen-Zers think that if it is not on tiktok it does not count. Especially if it is a book.
    4
  20.  @TravisMedia  how it's done in medicine, in civil engineering, damn, even in plumbing - certification by professional standards bodies with a government mandate to regulate. And, yes, ideally a pre-requisite for certification must be a relevant degree - just like you're unlikely to find a self-educated neurosurgeon, although it might be theoretically possible to go that way.
    4
  21.  @cody_codes_youtube  self-taughts are just the demographic slice where the problem is the most pronounced. Being a self-taught is not necessarily a root of the problem, it just tends to correlate with a lack of rigour that is otherwise present in those who had a more structured education. Regulations work pretty well in medical and engineering domains, and I cannot see how the same framework cannot be applied to the software development. Personal responsibility, to start with. Centralised certifications that should be required in any sensitive development (aerospace, automotive, financial, civil service related, personal data handling, etc.). Responsibility of the certifying bodies for the failures of the certified. I.e., all the same as we have in the engineering.
    4
  22. Cope more. LLMs are the final piece of puzzle we needed to build an AGI. You funny people keep forgetting about all the other pieces we already had.
    3
  23. This guy will do everything to avoid reading the calculus 101 textbooks. That's both sad and funny.
    3
  24. And Rust runs on the same compiler backend anyway.
    3
  25. Or, even better, a PhD in mathematics.
    3
  26.  @JustIsTime890  I deliberately stay away from anything "new" in this field (and every time anything new turns out to be a rehashed old), the timeless fundamentals are still the most valuable.thing to learn, everything else is transient and derivative.
    3
  27.  @ItzMeKarizma  yep, right, it's exactly the typical trait of your kind - considering mathematics useless. You know that you should not be a developer at all, if you're unable to design fault-tolerant systems? And you won't be able to do it without a great deal of mathematics.
    3
  28.  @Mattot-qi9qr  huh? CS or SE? These are different degrees.
    3
  29. I don't even know why Travis is talking about CS at all - scientists are supposed to do fundamental research. But, again, it is understandable when a self-taught is confusing CS and SE.
    2
  30. @ are you having a stroke? You're incoherent. And, a hint - if you think you're a developer, think again. Dunning-Kruger effect might have played a cruel joke on you.
    2
  31.  @elultimopujilense  Again. LLMs are a component of AI. The last bit that was missing. We had all the other pieces ready for decades.
    2
  32. Exactly, learning without a structure is a way to get mythical thinking and massive gaps in understanding. Structured learning is the only way to get a systematic understanding, and structure must be enforced externally.
    2
  33. Well well, it's not the best time to channel such an attitude, with the Horizon IT scandal being exposed in more and more depths. Turns out, bad software development can have even more devastating consequences than building bad bridges.
    2
  34.  @TravisMedia  code samples from Horizon were published, take a look at them. Nobody with even a bit of formal training could do anything like this. Of course there are very capable self-taught engineers and very bad engineers with degrees, but on average, self-taught ones tend to be the least capable. And if we introduce proper regulations, formal education will become an important part of the system (as an easiest route to a certification). In theory, a self-taught surgeon can get certified - but it's nearly impossible. I believe, the same should apply to the software engineers.
    2
  35. Even C# developers must understand in depth the difference between the stack and the heap. Less so with JVM, but still important.
    2
  36.  @santos8146  your condescending tone called for it. If you have a team that is about to start a project, you better not mind your own business, otherwise you'll end up using a language they'll pick without your input. Discussing and comparing languages is important. You won't know what and how to choose if you don't follow such arguments.
    2
  37.  @leojohn6702  not defending the OP in any way, for he is really ignorant and does not make any sense, but how is pig latin "offensive"? People are now offended by word games?
    2
  38. Computer Science is related to software development like astronomy is related to telescopes. The degree that should be required for software engineering is, you guessed it, Software Engineering.
    2
  39. And this is exactly why robust regulations are so important. With a personal responsibility, with severe consequences for screwing up, bad engineers will be weeded out.
    2
  40. Far too often those people who broke in are breaking things and wrecking havoc. There is a lot of wrong people in this industry, who should have stayed far away.
    2
  41. Those "senior developers" are likely the same kind of web coders as Travis, with the same worthless one-years-repeated-many-times "seniority". The actual CS scholars know how to use LLMs and how to make them extremely productive. Hint - all those co-pilots, cursors and such have nothing to do with the proper, correct use of LLMs for coding.
    2
  42. People who got a degree, any degree, are taught to study things systematically and to follow rigorous structures wherever posdible. This is what people who never had an experience of any higher education are missing and very rarely can catch up on their own.
    2
  43. Every developer must learn at least one language of each broad group, exactly for the reason you mentioned - to be able to use the right tool for each task. It is not that much. Learning similar languages can be excessive though (Python and JavaScript, Java and Go, etc.)
    2
  44. Wrong. The only good developers are people who transitioned from the other scientific or engineering disciplines. Already with tons of experience in their own fields. Juniors, who came to software development from nowhere, were always utterly useless.
    2
  45.  @Doppelgamer211  people who are in this industry to "sustain themselves" should have never been in this industry.
    2
  46.  @terry_hutt  internet is quite a bit older than 40 years. C# and Java are absolutely nothing new (remember P-codes?). OOP is not new (Simula, Smalltalk) and not interesting anyway. Automated testing existed since the dawn of things. Agile should have never existed. So yes, go on, you did not name a single new thing yet. Fundamentals taught 40 years ago are still fresh and relevant. Far more relevant than transient crap like C# or Java.
    2
  47.  @nicoxnarration-po6df  we're probably using very different definitions of what a fault-tolerant system is. I'm not aware of a single framework that'll enable you to build fault-tolerant systems out of the box, without the very complicated and convoluted system analysis. Proving that there is a transactional integrity across all the moving parts, for example, is already very mathematically heavy.
    2
  48.  @cody_codes_youtube  just one little piece is missing - make the darn certifications *mandatory*. This will weed out the most destructive and dangerous self-proclaimed developers, especially from the places where they can cause real harm.
    2
  49. If you screw up as a medic, you'll pay dearly. If you screw up as a software developer, people will suffer, but you'll just shrug it off. Is it fair? Regulations are long overdue.
    1
  50. Are you sure you found a right way? Witout any higger education (even in humanities), you do not know how to learn systematically. No amount of online material will help you to understand how to make robust systems of the pieces of knowledge you're picking up. You're guaranteed to have glaring gaps in fundamental knowledge that you won't even be able to detect.
    1