Best programmers by major?

>>8189847
it would be physicists just by the nature of their work.

>>8189850
Computer "scientists"

>physicists

bruh i spent like twelve hours yesterday working on basic python homework for my upper division computational physics class, i do not think physicists are the right answer here

>>8189847
>physicists
A physicist can't program themselves out of a paper bag unless that bag is written in fortran.

File: 1454454175818.jpg (70KB, 694x801px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 694x801px

>>8189847
>Good programmers
Mathematicians
Physicists
Computer engineers

>Afraid to poo in the loo so they take a dump in their code
Computer scientists
Software engineers
* technologists

>>8189850
I was a physics major who graduated knowing Fortran, Mathematica, C, Python, MATLAB, LaTeX and bash. Nobody ever taught me how to do any programming, but I was expected to know all of the languages listed at one point or another in my undergrad. I also had to use shit like Perl and Ruby, but never bothered to get any good with them. I think SOME physicists are pretty great with programming especially those who create simulations. The same can be said about chemists.

>>8189847
Mathematicians my man. Actual math major here working at a company that does financial software and let me tell you I've done some fucking shit. I touch systems with so many moving parts it is insane.

So mathematicians are the best programmer my man. Our intuition cannot be beaten.

>>8190347
Are you sure, my man?
>my man
>my man
>my man
>ad infinitum

File: test6-16-2012-6.59.38 AM.jpg (14KB, 323x262px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 323x262px

Am I the only one who took computer science specifically for job outlook?

I understand the hate, believe me I do. Some of the work it beyond easy, and should not be respected. But when I see math majors along with physics majors, asking me for help in a beginners course of java, it makes me fucking wonder. Bare in mind, that those individuals have 3.8 GPA or higher, Even as juniors.

>>8190353
They are individuals with actual classes to deal with. They know that if it ever becomes a necessity they can learn your entire degree in just a good night while being drunk so they don't pay attention to it and look for beta CS fags to cuck and extract quick knowledge from that will allow them to pass the class.

typically the individuals that practice programming the most are the best at programming. the only natural talent i have ever observed in programming is by jews 9 times out of 10 their undergraduate programs are just too easy so many skip their final year and head on to graduate school early

File: wat.jpg (19KB, 377x319px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 377x319px

>>8190364
>implying that I am not forcing myself to take actual classes outside my major map.

You fucking wot?

>>8190353
>gpa as a measure of the ability to think independently
yeah ok

>>8190379
>Included gpa as a means of "not just passing by" mentality. "Actually trying"
No shit GPA has nothing to do with intelligence.

>>8190050
>That code
dear god why

File: 1448247467834.gif (684KB, 286x274px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 286x274px

>>8189847
Game Programmers/Developers

Physicist here
i am awful at coding
i'm good at project managment though
like in hackathons i end up doing a little coding but mostly breaking the job down and giving everybody stuff to do
dunno if thats more me or the physics but thought i'd share

I really don't understand all this hate on this board in particular for computer science / software engineering. Can somebody provide some insight?

Sure, it's not as rigorous as mathematics or physics. There are a lot of fucktards in it, as in most STEM majors. But there's a lot more to it than just FizzBuzz and some baby algorithms and data structures as commonly believed on /sci/.

>>8190364
>there are some math and physics majors that actually believe this

>>8190587
Probably because of who study software enginerring and call it "computer science" and therefore think that computer science is not rigorous.

>>8190689
A lot of schools separate the two now.

At my uni, the first two years or so are basically the same, but then software engineering students take classes like extreme programming, large scale architectures, software metircs, while CS bros take compilers, AI, network security...

>>8190696
>extreme programming, large scale architectures, software metircs

See this is the kind of stuff that should be taught in a practical internship and not as a theoretical practice in university. What 'software engineering' is is completely backwards from what it's labeled as, and deals in topics that are best understood through practical application. Actual "software engineering" should be dealing with control systems, formal methods and the like.

>>8190347
>financial software
So I assume you're talking about figurative moving parts and not actual moving parts.

The correct answer, OP, is EE.

>>8190702
>control systems
I've never heard of a software engineering program teaching any control theory. That's strictly in the electrical track. Some CompEs might take it if they've got a big linear systems and signals background.

>>8190711
>I've never heard of a software engineering program teaching any control theory.

That's my point. Software engineering programs don't teach engineering in that sense, they teach rules of thumb for how to deal with large software systems from a management perspective. This is absolutely an important and worthwhile thing to learn, but the theoretical approach to it as taught in universities is generally poor and far less useful than engaging in practical software development. The software engineering classes I took when I was an undergrad used things like 'noun extraction' for Object Oriented design and other such absolute rubbish, yet not once did I head Liskov Substitution mentioned despite is being far and away a superior composition method in every respect.

File: Anon.jpg (253KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 2048x1152px

I'm sorry you couldn't quite get an answer (names, universities, contractors, etc.), but I guess you can try going to the online MIT math and technology section where you can email one of the professors and maybe they would like to help you find someone who has time, patience and the right intellectual level to the point where they are not talking gibberish to you. I take classes in my free time online because of MIT professors. You will not always get a reply but it's worth a shot. Good Luck!

>>8190702
I'm not sure if I agree with you? I sort of get your point though. I haven't taken LSA or XP yet, but in metrics, we were taught statistical process control. It was control charts, control charts and more control charts. I don't believe I'll ever use SPC when I'm out of school.

>>8190344
Wow. Where did you learn all these stuff?

>>8190379
Spotted the 3.6 faggot!

>>8189850

Have you ever see code written by physicists? Sure, they can code and it works, but it's often a giant mess.

>>8189847
Major doesn't matter.
The best programmers are these who are actual hobbyist/hackers instead of these who study programming for good salary. CS and CE are full of second type.

>>8190711
>I've never heard of a software engineering program teaching any control theory.

http://www.seng.uvic.ca/current-students/curriculum/

Look in the 3rd year for ELEC 360 - Control Theory and Systems: I. It's required by Computer Engineers, Software Engineers and Electrical Engineers.

File: 1367794762822.jpg (119KB, 514x789px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 514x789px

>>8189847
Jokes on you OP, no one writes good code.

No solid correlation, nor causative elements.

I'd say physicists if I had to answer, because people who are prone to wanting to unravel the base aspects of the universe also might be apt to want to legitimately understand what their signal manipulation system is and can be in an ideal case. In an ontological sense.

Though I've met many physicists, and a lot of them are the same overspecialized gutter trash you find everywhere else. So maybe not.

File: Chemical_Plant_Expansion_photo.jpg (1MB, 2269x807px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2269x807px

>>8190704
ChemE here.

Our moving parts are the biggest. Call me again when you faggots are programming contollers on anything bigger than those mechanical penisses you call robotic arms.

>>8190972
It's called creating job security. A programmer who writes critical code which only they can maintain is a programmer who cannot be fired.

>>8189847
Gender studies.
Someone's got to code those privilege checkers

>>8190995
You don't really need good understanding of signal manipulation to be a good programmer.
To be a good programmer, experience, algorithmic thinking, knowledge of limitations of your machine and knowledge of programming style/conventions/pattern is what is most important.

>>8191053
this
also don't forget the underlying memory organization of your programming language. speed your program up by a huge margin.

All the people saying physicists are wrong. While there are good physicist programmers, especially those doing simulations, most of them treat the scripts they write like the pieces of paper they scribble their equations on. They produce incomprehensible shit that only kinda works and is "good enough".
I don't blame them though because those scripts only usually get run two or three times.

>>8191086
When I said "physicist" I was thinking more of a physicist programming as a hobby on some project of their own.

pure math
a good CS program is basically almost all math anyway
t. math/cs major

>>8191086
Sometimes, yeah. I had an advisor I was working for once who wanted me to make a simulation that was clearly going to take a lot of time to write and run. She told me to write it in python and have it ready by the next day. I told her that python would be too slow and that to write it properly would take me a lot longer. Her response was that she wanted to make sure the idea would work and the easiest way to do that is to write it in a very forgiving language before "upgrading." Did I comment that program? No. Did I run that program more than once? No. Did that program work? Yes.

Good enough is good enough. I went on to write it properly in C and revised it quite a few times.

You definitely see this attitude all the time. I had a different advisor who showed me some code and I made a suggestion for speeding it up to collect more data per second. His response was something along the lines of, "It runs fast enough for what we're doing--don't waste valuable time fixing something that isn't broken."

>>8191574
this is actually a good attitude. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As for mathematicians, generally different focuses lead to different levels of programming ability. Mathematicians who focus on combinatorial and algebraic problems tend to be better at intuitively understanding code than those who work in more analytic fields, at least in my experience. Could be wrong though, my sample set is very limited.

>>8190050
holy shit nice code snip

>>8191598
that may be true for someone who is working with a particular margin of error and i take it most of STEM are.

Computer scientists. At my uni the physics department won't hesitate to consult a computer scientist for help on anything they need done programming. The computer scientist will understand concurrency and parallel programming more than the physicist would have time to figure out or care to learn. Mathematicians to a lesser extent, the numerical analysts seem to not ask for outside help and can hold their own and satisfy their own needs.

>>8191023

>tfw double majored in physics and gender studies
>tfw making $75k/yr right out of school working for a tech company
>tfw working on two independent research projects in computational biophysics and in trans legal rights

My background and intelligence transcends the ability to get memed at, it's awesome.

>>8191775
As another common example to support this point, a lot of the programs I have used or have made in my field (physics) lack proper "idiot-proofing." For example, if the program asks for me to enter an integer and I enter a string, you better believe the thing will crash. I don't waste time with stuff like that because the program is for either me or for someone whom I've explained it too.

>>8191931

You can solve this with like a three line while loop, it's one of the very first things I learned in my computational physics class.

>>8189847

Software engineers.

>>8191936
I don't think that was the point

le hax0rz

>>8191761
Care to elaborate what that code does?

3.Arts
2.Undeclared
1.Unenrolled

>>8192402
This anon knows what's up.

>>8189847
my major
/thread

>>8192392
returns doubleNum

>>8192392
Uses a relatively expensive conversion from integer to string, concatenates the string which likely involves a copy, and then an equally expensive conversion from string to float, rather than a direct and relatively cheap conversion from integer to float.

File: COWuiLTWwAAKWXB.jpg (14KB, 524x172px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 524x172px

My all time favorite piece of shit code.

Materials scientists are the best programers. The laws that govern the characteristics of materials are the laws that govern logic itself, which are the laws that in turn govern the axioms of computer science. Anyone that disagrees with such an assertation belong on /pol/ and\or /b/.

>>8192451
> blah blah blah superior logic
>"Anyone that disagrees with such an assertation belong on /pol/ and\or /b/."

wew

>>8192448
What always frustrates me about these solutions is that they don't seem to have asked themselves "I wonder how this other function does it?"

>>8192451
Using a backslash between two words is incredibly ugly.

>>8192457
I can sort of relate tho. When I was a novice, often I would over-complicate things.

File: image.jpg (60KB, 501x373px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 501x373px

>>8192459
Only if you are a nigger. I bet you celebrated the murder of the police officers in Dallas yesterday. For shame...

>>8192448
Where did this piece of shit come from?

>>8192461
I can relate to over-complication, but I recognized complicated functions like sprintf to be incredibly bloated for any other purpose than their actual intent, and from the beginning wanted to learn how to reimplement them myself anyway. Which took a while, but small pieces were just a google away if I couldn't figure them out myself.

i'd say someone who went to school for computer science would be the best programmer

they are literally a computer scientist

they study the science of programming

how is this even a question?

>>8192542
I'd say software engineer beat computer scientist in quality of code and software design.
and computer scientists don't study the "science" of programming. what they do are kinda applied math. most uni include some software engineer course in their CS programs though. hence, I'd say we are better than others but not than software engineer.

File: 1460768748156.gif (947KB, 285x235px) Image search: [Google]

947KB, 285x235px

>>8190704
HA
EE
good one anon.

>>8192550
This definitely. CS teaches you nothing about practical application design. That comes from experience with medium and large codebases.