Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: "Real" Computer Scientists vs. Modern Curriculum?

An anonymous reader writes At work yesterday, I overheard a programmer explaining his perception of the quality of the most recent CS grads. In his opinion, CS students who primarily learn Java are inferior because they don't have to deal with memory management as they would if they used C. As a current CS student who's pursing a degree after 10 years of experience in the IT field, I have two questions for my fellow Slashdoters: "Is this a common concern with new CS grads?" and, if so, "What can I do to supplement my Java-oriented studies?"

41 of 637 comments (clear)

  1. Beards and suspenders. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

    Difference is the "real" ones have beards and wear suspenders.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Beards and suspenders. by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 4, Funny

      Difference is the "real" ones have beards and wear suspenders.

      Kids these days with their "showers" and "grooming" and "social media" and whatnot... Where's the *science*?

    2. Re:Beards and suspenders. by lgw · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Java schools are a menace, but since it's nearly impossible to find grads with a "real" programming curriculum any more, I think we've just sort of given up and accepted our fate as needing to teach new college hires everything.

      If you can code - really write code beyond simple toy assignments - in any language, you're already doing above average. But if you want to be top tier, you really need to understand the crufty details of what compilers do and how they do it. While there are no lack of Java jobs, you're really missing something if you don't have a good mental model of computers at the machine language level, and if you've never done any "bit bashing" (working with unsigned ints as arrays of bits, not as numbers).

      My suggestion for getting a rounded education is to go write some C code. Write code to count the '1' bits in an unsigned int -- no googling the answer! -- and then keep brainstorming for ways to optimize that (when you can snatch the bitcount with "n%63", you will be ready to leave the temple). Write code to do other bit-bashing - reverse the bits in a word, find the base-2 log of an int, and so on. Write your own "bignum" implantation from scratch, to have a larger problem to solve with lots of corner cases and ugly cruft.

      These are toy problems, and they won't teach you all the stuff you can learn in Java about "software engineering", but they'll cover and important gap. Most importantly of all - debug through all your solutions and get comfortable with debugging. Debug through the generated object code, stepping through one instruction at a time until you understand what's happening. Debug through the object of non-optimized vs highly optimized code.

      Don't stop until you're totally comfortable with bit-bashing, with pointers and pointer-array equivalency, and so on. Once you start debugging through C code, especially the object, natural geek curiosity will serve you well to cover the gaps in a Java-only background.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Beards and suspenders. by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can't believe that you can graduate with a CS degree today without having at least one assembly language class which should show you about bit-twiddling and memory management just a bit. Not to mention an OS class that would expose you to exercises to modify a Linux kernel - written in C.

      What do they actually teach in a CS degree these days? Don't tell me... Gamification, HTML, CSS, and Javascript, right? Do they actually make you take a database or an algorithms class any more?

      --
      That is all.
    4. Re:Beards and suspenders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Write code to count the '1' bits in an unsigned int -- no googling the answer!

      Meh. That's easy...

      public static void main(String[] a)
      {
              int x = 0;

              for(char c : Integer.toBinaryString(847389).toCharArray())
                      if (c == '1')
                              x++;

              System.out.println(x);
      }

      -- and then keep brainstorming for ways to optimize that

      I'm sure there's already a framework for that somewhere.

    5. Re:Beards and suspenders. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator or the unary & operator, or is a string literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has type ‘‘array of type’’ is converted to an expression with type ‘‘pointer to type’’ that points to the initial element of the array object and is not an lvalue. If the array object has register storage class, the behavior is undefined.

      I love it when you talk dirty.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Beards and suspenders. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do know that sort of obsessive language-lawyering is exactly what turns people off to exploring C, right?

      Someone well-versed in Java won't be surprised that arrays know their own size. That's not the interesting lesson here, for someone who's never seen the difference between big- and little-endian in a debugger.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Beards and suspenders. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do know that sort of obsessive language-lawyering is exactly what turns people off to exploring C, right?

      If it also turns them off from having to ask why this program

      #include <stdio.h>

      static void
      bar(char *foo)
      {
      printf("sizeof foo is %u\n", (unsigned int)sizeof foo);
      }

      int
      main(void)
      {
      char foo[1024];

      printf("sizeof foo is %u\n", (unsigned int)sizeof foo);
      bar(foo);
      return 0;
      }

      doesn't print two identical lines - or from writing code that breaks because of this - that would be for the best.

    8. Re:Beards and suspenders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Most students I've talked to recently took one semester of "C programming", but just did the sorts of things in C they already knew how to do in Java (except awkwardly in C), and didn't understand the pointers of the class (and perhaps the class was pointerless)

      There, fixed that for you.

    9. Re:Beards and suspenders. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's the difference in the behavoir of the unary & op?

      If you've declared int foo[17], then &foo is an expression of type "pointer to array of int", not "pointer to int" or "pointer to pointer to int" or any other pointer type.

    10. Re:Beards and suspenders. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      None of these or any other internal arcana of c have anything to do with designing algorithms or programming computers.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  2. Real Programmers don't use GC by ehack · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Real Programmers don't use GC" is a mantra that is responsible for 90% at least of production bugs, together with "=" being typed instead of "==".

    --
    This is not a signature.
    1. Re: Real Programmers don't use GC by samkass · · Score: 3, Funny

      Fortunately JavaScript solved that. These days, programmers type == instead of ===! Progress!

      --
      E pluribus unum
    2. Re:Real Programmers don't use GC by GiganticLyingMouth · · Score: 4, Funny
      "If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution"

      – Robert Sewell

  3. Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't they be computer scientists? Software engineering, while related, is not the same thing as computer science. Would you ask a scientist to build a bridge, or an engineer?

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    1. Re:Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      95% of CS grads spend their carrier banging out boring code. Accept it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by ThatsDrDangerToYou · · Score: 3, Funny

      95% of CS grads spend their carrier banging out boring code. Accept it.

      "no carrier"

    3. Re:Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by timrod · · Score: 3, Funny

      I definitely would not ask a scientist to build an engineer, especially a software engineer. That's how you get Frankenstein's monster.

    4. Re:Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So why do you study computer science to become an software engineer then?
      Or why do you study other sciences to become a relevant engineer (mechanics, electric etc.)?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Programming = Application = FUN.
      Computer Scientist = Research = Theory = mostly boring.

      Lowly programmer? Now piss off, I have my degree.

    6. Re:Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'll betcha a current CS grad wrote the auto-correct logic that did that.

      Case... fucking...closed.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    7. Re:Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by passionplay · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You study ENGINEERING (a discipline) to become a LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
      You study MEDICINE (a discipline) to become a LICENSED MEDICAL DOCTOR.
      You would have to agree an automotive engineer is not the same as a mechanic which is not the same as a scientist in combustible fuels.

      Software development is an art form. Software engineering is a discipline. Computer Science is a science.

      Studying computer science by itself enables you to become:
      1. A computer scientist
      2. A computer programmer
      3. A computer technician

      Even becoming a computer science teacher would require you to study EDUCATION as a discipline.

      There are no shortcuts. While life experience may teach you SOME things to become an engineer, there is no substitute for a Computer Science degree that focuses on software engineering. You could become an engineer after years of experience. or you could simply learn the discipline and stand on the shoulders of giants and open yourself up to learning from and teaching others in the discipline for a lifetime.

      The next time you ask yourself, "Where on God's green earth would I use this knowledge", stop yourself. And think: "Why on earth would I want to work harder and solve problems already solved by others."

      An engineer solves problems a new way because the outcomes of all the known methods are not satisfactory. An engineer can predict reliably how long something should take from his body of knowledge.
      A developer solves problems a new way because it's fun, it's cool and it's artistic. A developer, like an artist, works until he's done.

      There is nothing wrong with being a developer or an artist. But just as we should never confuse industrial art with fine art, we should never confuse software development with software engineering.

      If you can only solve the problem at hand, you will not have fun doing engineering. If you are happier solving higher order problems of how things are put together and how to do things efficiently or discovering how to things MORE efficiently by building on the knowledge of others or collaborating, you will have fun doing engineering.

    8. Re:Why do CS grads become lowly programmers? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Software engineering and software development is the same thing.
      For any of both you have to study computer science (except you want to proclaim yourself a self taught or otherwise taught 'engeneer'/'developer')

      Programming is not an art, like painting a wall or some tapestry is no art.

      In all human crafts we have a progression from apprentice, journeyman, craftsman, master to engineer, scientist, artist.

      Or is more like a tree than a strict line. I would not know how you can at the high end of the spectrum distinguish an artist from a scientist. And in the middle ground a master still can be a scientist and an artist. Actually everyone can claim both 'titles' for themselves. After all it is a matter what you seek. Do you want to research/seek and explore knowledge? Then you are more the scientist, do you as well like to formulate theories and 'best practices' then you are even more a scientist. Do you more research/seek expressiveness, intuitive understanding, inspiration, interconnection to other arts then you are more an artist.

      Do you need an education in arts to call yourself an artist? No!
      Do you need an education in science to call your self an scientist? No!

      Do you need an education in science to call yourself an engineer? YES!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  4. Not this again. by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes Java monkeys don't understand memory management.

    But a CS student shouldn't be a simple Java monkey. C isn't good enough. They should all have at least a semester of Assembler.

    There have always been a subset of CS students that didn't get anywhere close to the metal. They suck.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    1. Re:Not this again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. Memory management isn't difficult in the brain power sense, it's difficult in the pain in the ass sense. We've decided years ago that there are much better things to be thinking about than releasing objects and reference counting and that sort of garbage, especially since it can be automated.

      What you are reading is people who are trying to elevate themselves by referencing a new obscure technique. Hey, I know AT commands for a modem. Does anyone give a shit? I certainly hope not.

      If the only thing that differentiates a great CS grad from a crappy one is memory management, that's a pretty shallow argument. Google it, read it, manage memory for a few hours and poof you're an expert.

    2. Re:Not this again. by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nonsense, real CS people should have a year studying butterflies.

      As to Java or Assembler, neither are computer science. CS is about algorithms, run time, data models, paradigms, approaches. BTW, without understanding memory management, you will have memory management problems regardless of the language used. It is just the degree of how bad the problems are, whether they cause program to terminate only or also may become attack vectors.

    3. Re:Not this again. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've also worked with custom cpus that had 2 registers and no stack

      Luxury, we used to dream of two registers ... ;-)

      But, seriously, having been through assembly, Pascal, C, Data Structures, Compiler Design, telecomms, and some bare-metal hardware programming ... I do lament that for a lot of people it's just "oh, well, we're gonna need an infinite supply of memory" instead of actually writing compact code which doesn't just keep getting bigger.

      I once had a former co-worker who followed the mantra that optimization was a pointless exercise. He tended to include every library known to man, not give a damn about the efficiency of the library, and ended up with code which was slow but couldn't be optimized because he had no control over anything.

      I never understood how someone could continue to claim that optimization was pointless, and then write slow code. You'd think some empirical evidence to the contrary would have helped sway him.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:Not this again. by Matheus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ya the OP is asking the wrong question really... Honestly a school that is cranking out pure Java monkeys is called a "Tech School". If your Bachelors isn't providing you with the breadth of experience/knowledge you need then sorry you picked the wrong school.

      I was in school during the transition.. my Intro to Programming was in "C++" (in quotes because it was taught by a C dev who barely knew any of the ++ besides basic OOP). A had a couple other classes using C++ but that quickly transitioned to Java mid-sophomore year. Of course I also learned MAL/SAL, Various hardware languages, Lisp and a number of "scripting" languages.

      The important part of all of that is that the language in question was the "tool" we used to learn what the class was teaching. The class was not teaching us the language (although plenty of off-hours support was given if you didn't know it going in). Honestly I learned WAY more about memory management in my Operating Systems class which used Java as its reference language than I ever did in the handful of C++ classes I had.

      Side Comment: As someone who's spent a majority of his professional career writing Java code, a Java programmer who doesn't think about memory management is a terrible Java dev (and yeah I know there are a LOT of terrible Java devs out there). I have had not a single project where close attention to Objects' memory utilization and freeing wasn't required. The terms used are different as are the calls you make but just about any software that just "leaves it up to the GC" will have issues.

    5. Re:Not this again. by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      99% of code is better slow and simple. Because it simply doesn't matter.

      Right up until it does.

      And the people who think optimization is pointless because it doesn't matter are generally clueless about how to fix it when it does fall apart, because they're so reliant on their frameworks and libraries they haven't the slightest idea of where to begin.

      I can't even tell you how many times I've seen code which was written to look pretty, but which in practice was bordering on unworkable.

      I've seen more than a few OO developers who write what looks like clean, elegant code, but which actually has a huge amount more overhead and convolution which is masked by the library -- so much so that they're calling an n^2 algorithm n^2 times, instead of just writing something which didn't suck from the beginning.

      Because, in their mind, the magic library and compiler would make it super efficient, when it did anything but.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  5. Yes by kwiqsilver · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. Yes.
    2. Learn some lower level languages like assembler, C, or C++. Even if you don't use the techniques, understanding them will give you a better understanding of what's going on in your Java programs.

  6. ASM by just_another_sean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Learn some assembly. Not because you will use it every day (or ever) but because it helps remind you that all the code we typically write is just layers of abstraction on top of a machine (which even assembly is, albeit very low level abstractions).

    An old boss from years ago (a mentor for me really) watched me troubleshooting a network issue in an application. He said to me "you seem to be having trouble spotting the problem. Have you tried going lower down the stack?". So I tried ping by name, nothing, ping by number, nothing, etc. Finally after reviewing ip configurations, arp and routing tables and probably a few other things I forget I figured out I had a bad cable.

    That taught me a lesson that I've applied to many areas of computers, including programming, over the years. If something seems like it should work but does not maybe something underneath it is the problem. If you want to be able to debug code at the library level or interfaces to lower level languages it helps to understand things like memory layout, registers, the call stack, etc.

    My $.02.

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  7. Oh, for... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, in MY opinion, CS students who learned in C or C++ or Pascal or PL/1 are inferior because they use the stack as a crutch, instead of manually keeping track of callback history. If you don't have to write explicit code to keep track of every call, or allocate every local variable, your code will... well, actually, it'll likely be easier to read, easier to maintain, and easier to optimize. But it won't be as good as the code we had to write back in my day.

  8. Not 'inferior', but ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    CS students who primarily learn Java are inferior because they don't have to deal with memory management as they would if they used C

    You know, I wouldn't want to specifically use the word 'inferior', but you do learn a hell of a lot from having to deal with your own memory management.

    When I was in school, lo these many years ago, I and a fellow student wrote the same basic assignment for a course.

    He was one of the sysadmins on the VAX and could set his process to use a vast array which was mostly empty, and rely purely on virtual memory. I had a tiny little 80286, and had to implement the same thing in a sparse array which took up a fraction of the space.

    We both got the expected results and got good grades, but the prof basically said since I'd done so much more thought on memory management and the other guy didn't, I'd get the A+ and he got the A.

    The Prof also stole my code to use in his own project, because by the time you accounted for architecture mine was about 4x faster and 100x smaller, and he'd basically given us an assignment which overlapped with his own research.

    Would I want to do bare metal memory management in C every day? Probably not. Do I think it was valuable to have had to learn how to shoehorn something into a small amount of memory and explicitly be the one to make sure my memory wasn't leaking? Absolutely.

    I think more modern software would suck less if developers didn't just assume there were massive gobs of memory sitting around, and implement everything in the easiest way possible without having to factor in resources. Most modern browsers seem to grow their memory usage at a pretty linear rate, even if you're not using the browser.

    Because, really, pretty much every piece of software seems to double in it resource requirements every few years.

    And understanding pointer arithmetic and semantics in C is valuable, even if most people will never directly see anything resembling a pointer these days.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. Yes, but no by Unordained · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've recently watched my wife (C++ environment) deal with a new-grad (Java-based education.) It's true that pointers are a sticking point -- in the process of being taught Java, they get taught that pointers are bad and dangerous (all hail Java for solving the problem,) and can be made only barely tolerable by using auto_ptr, but really should just be avoided. Yeah, it's a problem, sure.

    But the bigger problem we have with new-grads and junior-devs, in general, is the same problem you'd have in any field: they're green. They don't test well, or at all. They don't think designs through. They don't communicate well. They ask too many questions, or maybe worse, they ask too few. They try to fix things that aren't broken. They're bad at estimating task sizes (admittedly, people rarely get much better at that even after decades.) In an attempt to not suck, they reach out for best-practices and apply them zealously and inappropriately. They can't imagine how things will fail, or be abused. They spend too much time fixing small problems, and not enough time fixing big ones. And maybe worst of all, they're under the illusion that what they learned in school ought to prepare them for the workforce, when really it just gets their foot in the door.

    We, as their seniors, are the ones that should be spending the time fixing their misconceptions, fleshing our their education, filling their minds with the horrors we've seen, and setting up their work habits. When they fail, it's because we fail to do these things, usually because we brought them in too late in a project, gave them too much responsibility, and are fighting a deadline. So we "just fix it" for them, and they don't learn from the experience, while we gain nothing in terms of productivity from having them.

    But if I were to nitpick their education? Databases. Recent grads have little or no understanding of relational databases. Their thinking on organizing data, in general, is fuzzy at best, which impacts more than just database code, it impacts class and API designs, often crippling whole features with incorrect cardinality. It deserves more attention in school. The rest, we can fix in production. =)

    1. Re:Yes, but no by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree that it is up to the greybeards to teach the young 'uns, but a large part of that is corporate culture.

      When I was fresh out of school, I worked at a place where cameraderie was paramount. We went for lunch. We went for coffee. We went for smokes.

      And we talked about issues and the problems they'd encountered over the years, and how they'd approached them and solved them.

      The last few jobs I had, if you spent any time on such "idle chit-chat", the management came down on you hard for "not doing your job." It's pretty damned hard to educate the younguns if there is no opportunity to talk with them.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  10. Three Divisions of Computer Science by brian.stinar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The department I go my masters in computer science from divided the discipline into three chunks:
          systems
          languages
          theory

    I think this is a good way to divide computer science.

    It sounds like your Java / C question involves mostly languages, and a little bit about systems (since Java programmers do not need to have a fundamental understanding of memory works at a system's level.)

    I don't think this question really addresses the underlying issue - what is computer science? To me, I tell people that my formal education is closer to applied mathematics than what I do on a day to day basis. I also like to humorously use the derogatory term "code monkey" to people that have learned everything through the "languages" chunk above. A lot of times when I've worked with these people, they haven't even really studied languages (Why did the language designers make the choice that they did? What does the formal language specification say the language should do in this case? How is this language related to earlier languages?)

    Again, about 90% of what I do on a daily basis could be considered "code monkey" level. It's when a customer has a REALLY difficult math problem that my formal education comes into play, and for giving people confidence in me.

    For your direct question, I'd study the book Computer Architecture, Fifth Edition: A Quantitative Approach (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Computer Architecture and Design)

    That's what I used, and it helped me understand a ton of memory management. Then again, my undergrad curriculum was based on C....

  11. Re:memory management by ZeroPly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    CS should be different from programming. Back in the day when I did my undergrad, the programming was something you mostly figured out on your own time. When I took Operating Systems 1, we were studying memory management, Belady's anomaly, semaphores, etc, but we were also expected to become proficient in Unix scripting by the end of the semester. The exchange on the first day of class went something like this:

    Prof: Homework for this week is to write a tcsh script that will set your environment variables when you log in based on a menu.
    Student: What's tcsh?
    Prof: It's one of the shells in Unix, you can write scripts using it.
    Student: How do I learn to use it?
    Prof: The manual command is "man" in Unix.
    Student: How do I use the "man" command?
    Prof: Use "man man" to find out how to use "man".
    (whole class looks bewildered for about 10 seconds - not sure if he's joking or if Unix is really that insane)
    Prof writes across the top of the board: THIS IS A UNIVERSITY, NOT A TRADE SCHOOL. RTFM.

    If you can't figure out how to learn the mechanics of Java, Python, whatnot on your own time, you really don't have the brain needed to do computer science. The problem is that everyone and their plumber is getting a 4 year degree these days, so it's become the equivalent of a high school diploma in the 80's.

    --
    Support microSD: in a post 9/11 world, it is unwise to carry your data on media that you cannot comfortably swallow.
  12. Re:wow great by mrvan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow could you please not downvote me please thanks? That's really rude.

    Why don't you impose a $500 fine?

  13. focus on engineering by a2wflc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem I've seen in CS grads over the last 10-15 years is they have little to no engineering background (even when their degree is "Computer Engineering"). Most applications are complex systems. And most CS grads don't understand systems. I've been able to teach EEs, a chem E, a civil E, an MD and a CPA (among others) how to program. And they've had no trouble implementing solid class hierarchies and robust applications. It's much harder to teach a CS grad about structural integrity, analyzing a design for weaknesses, and root cause analysis. In some cases they won't accept those are even an issue since "software is so different from physical structures". So they keep building things that pass all the tests but repeatedly fall down once they get to production.

  14. There are two kinds of programmers by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 3, Informative

    Those who can write in Java, and those who can write Java.

    Or those who can write in C#, and those who can write the .NET runtime.

    Or those who can write in PHP, and those who can create PHP. Wait, those are the same.

    You get what I'm saying. The programmers who whine about requirements to understand low-level memory management are in the first category, and their knowledge and skills are laughable compared to the kind of programmers who get hired by the likes of Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

    Stop trying to pretend you're as good. If you were as good you'd be doing something interesting instead of slapping together enterprise bloatware.

  15. Keeeeerhiiist I want to laugh at this... by Xaedalus · · Score: 4, Funny

    but gawddamn, if I meet ONE more unshaven skinny ratty-haired white dev/programmer in his late twenties/early thirties with an aversion to water, soap, matching colors and food (what is it with devs and eating disorders???) here in Seattle, I might just have to defenestrate the fucker to save my sanity. Preferably out an upper window at the downtown Macy's, so that said dev/programmer might actually observe cleanliness and fashion through visual osmosis prior to becoming one with pavement. I don't care if said beautiful mind is autistic, aspie, or what-not--Hygiene is source code!!!!!! Execute it on a daily basis! And if the sensory stimulus is THAT much of an overload then spend some of your six figure salary to get therapy and coaching on how to minimize input while maximizing the ability to incorporate the close proximity of other people!!! I much prefer the Indian and Chinese devs and programmers, not least because they don't have eating disorders and they both understand and practice a minimal standard of hygiene.

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.