Class Journal Week 4 - Revision history

Dondi: /* Veronica Pacheco */ Respond to shared journal entry.

2015-10-11T04:43:52Z

‎Veronica Pacheco: Respond to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Kevin Wyllie */ Respond to shared journal entry.

2015-10-11T04:37:00Z

‎Kevin Wyllie: Respond to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Ron Legaspi */ Respond to shared journal entry.

2015-10-11T02:20:04Z

‎Ron Legaspi: Respond to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Erich Yanoschik */ Provide response to shared journal entry.

2015-10-11T02:13:44Z

‎Erich Yanoschik: Provide response to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Trixie Roque */ Respond to shared journal entry.

2015-10-11T01:37:12Z

‎Trixie Roque: Respond to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Brandon Litvak */ Provide response to shared journal entry.

2015-10-11T01:27:02Z

‎Brandon Litvak: Provide response to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Jake Woodlee */ Respond to shared journal entry.

2015-10-11T01:05:55Z

‎Jake Woodlee: Respond to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Kristin Zebrowski */ Respond to shared journal entry.

2015-10-10T23:51:33Z

‎Kristin Zebrowski: Respond to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Mary Alverson */ Respond to shared journal entry.

2015-10-10T23:46:46Z

‎Mary Alverson: Respond to shared journal entry.

Dondi: /* Josh Kuroda */ Respond to shared journal entry.

2015-10-10T23:36:02Z

‎Josh Kuroda: Respond to shared journal entry.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:43, 11 October 2015
Line 286:		Line 286:

	[[User:Vpachec3\|Vpachec3]] ([[User talk:Vpachec3\|talk]]) 00:22, 29 September 2015 (PDT)		[[User:Vpachec3\|Vpachec3]] ([[User talk:Vpachec3\|talk]]) 00:22, 29 September 2015 (PDT)
		+
		+	You’ll be surprised how dead-on your scenario of “it’s better to do this in this language vs. that” has been in my experience—or maybe not ''':)''' To tie it in with what you said about <code>sed</code> and C, it is true that assorted qualities, like meticulousness, simplicity, power, etc., all come together to create the assorted preferences that programmers express regarding their favorite (or least-favorite) languages. Some languages are what they call “forgiving,” where user error or variance—within limits—are tolerable and remain acceptable. (as you have seen, <code>sed</code> is not one of those languages, haha) In a way, C is like that too, in that it grants the coder a lot of flexibility in how to look at data and how to manipulate it. On the other hand, too much forgiveness can also lead to too little protection…and that is what C is like, also. For all of the flexibility that it grants, it leaves it to ''you'' to make sure that you are not abusing or misusing that flexibility. But, like Ford said, when used right, it runs extremely quickly and is in fact fast enough to implement entire other languages (nearly all of the other languages mentioned, like Java, Python, and JavaScript, are themselves written in C). So it’s a tradeoff—power for accountability.
		+
		+	—''[[User:Dondi\|Dondi]] ([[User talk:Dondi\|talk]]) 21:43, 10 October 2015 (PDT)''

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:37, 11 October 2015
Line 264:		Line 264:

	[[User:Kwyllie\|Kwyllie]] ([[User talk:Kwyllie\|talk]]) 23:08, 28 September 2015 (PDT)		[[User:Kwyllie\|Kwyllie]] ([[User talk:Kwyllie\|talk]]) 23:08, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
		+
		+	In your responses to the first two questions, I see a common theme: layers. You recognized that, depending on your perspective, <code>sed</code> may be a language in itself (a language concerned primarily with search-and-replace, but still a language), or, as you said, it may be merely a verb in another language. In the end I think both perspectives have merit, and they cease to be contradictory when one introduces the idea of different levels subsuming others. This theme emerges as well in terms of what appeals to you about Smalltalk, and that has merit as well. Languages to indeed beget languages: Java is actually written in C, and although I’m less sure of this, Smalltalk’s core is written in C also. Then, on top of that, there is a version of JavaScript that is written in Java! And so forth. The amazing thing is that eventually, parts of a language then become written with itself—i.e., parts of ''Smalltalk'' are written in Smalltalk! So not only do we have layers, but we have ''self-referential'' layers, where one level is simply a microcosm of itself.
		+
		+	As you can probably see, this carries into biology as well. The chambered nautilus builds itself with progressively larger segments of its shell, but at any given moment the shell appears complete. The branches of a tree keep on branching, and at each branch, when viewed at the right scale you actually can’t tell if you’re looking at a twig or a trunk.
		+
		+	Keep that “layered thinking” going, and I think you’ll encounter further insights as you go along ''':)'''
		+
		+	—''[[User:Dondi\|Dondi]] ([[User talk:Dondi\|talk]]) 21:37, 10 October 2015 (PDT)''

	==Veronica Pacheco==		==Veronica Pacheco==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:20, 11 October 2015
Line 243:		Line 243:

	-- [[User:Rlegaspi\|Rlegaspi]] ([[User talk:Rlegaspi\|talk]]) 22:27, 28 September 2015 (PDT)		-- [[User:Rlegaspi\|Rlegaspi]] ([[User talk:Rlegaspi\|talk]]) 22:27, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
		+
		+	Many folks will agree that Python fits those atypical adjectives that you mention, and this is certainly a contributor to its popularity. I do also feel a certain degree of freedom and flexibility when I write Python code, so I’d say I sense those characteristics firsthand, too.
		+
		+	Like you said, “anger” is more a factor of non-acceptance that things change. It does drive what we do, and as long as we are aware that this is the driving force, then I think there will be less “anger.” I made some statements near the top of this journal page that accepting change can lead to better awareness of what ''doesn’t'' change, too. If we gain expertise in that, we can then learn to navigate change more easily.
		+
		+	— ''[[User:Dondi\|Dondi]] ([[User talk:Dondi\|talk]]) 19:20, 10 October 2015 (PDT)''

	----		----

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:13, 11 October 2015
Line 222:		Line 222:

	--[[User:Eyanosch\|Eyanosch]] ([[User talk:Eyanosch\|talk]]) 22:22, 28 September 2015 (PDT)		--[[User:Eyanosch\|Eyanosch]] ([[User talk:Eyanosch\|talk]]) 22:22, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
		+
		+	It’s great that you have an appreciation for what you have seen so far, and also an understanding that there is a lot more going on underneath the hood. In case you ever happen to chat with Sam about these things, go ahead and tell him about <code>grep</code> and <code>sed</code>, then ask him about <code>awk</code>. That is another powerful command for transforming data, and Sam is pretty fluent in it—much more than I am, actually.
		+
		+	Yes, C can be a huge hot mess if you’re not careful, and that’s why the software engineering community has built a comprehensive set of ''best practices'' to help us keep a handle on large, complex code bases. There’s software design patterns; test-driven development; coding style guides; and many more. All of Linux is indeed written in C (well, mostly—there are some “raw machine” portions), and you can actually read all of this code in all its glory at http://kernel.org. Not for the faint-hearted, but you might get a kick out of knowing that it’s there.
		+
		+	Your reference to ''Silicon Valley'' adds a new spin to the notion of coders being angry, that has not been seen on this journal page so far: the idea of ''money''. Much as we like to be idealistic and altruistic about what we do, it can’t be denied that money is a significant factor in many aspects of life. In technology, it is actually the predominant one for those who are not intrinsically interested in the subject matter. I have heard good things about ''Silicon Valley'', so keep on watching it ''':)''' I have definitely known my share of colleagues who have gotten “angry” in that way—when I was in graduate school, one of the early big purchases was the one where Microsoft bought Hotmail (yes—Hotmail was not originally Microsoft’s product!). One of my grad school colleagues was livid with jealousy—he went on for many days about how Hotmail was such a ''simple'' idea and ''he'' could have written it if he had had the chance. He was looking at the millions that Microsoft paid for it and thought that these had been taken from him. Oh well…he is a pretty successful tech executive now, so I think he is finally over that.
		+
		+	—''[[User:Dondi\|Dondi]] ([[User talk:Dondi\|talk]]) 19:13, 10 October 2015 (PDT)''

	----		----

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:37, 11 October 2015
Line 206:		Line 206:

	--- [[User:Troque\|Troque]] ([[User talk:Troque\|talk]]) 20:14, 28 September 2015 (PDT)		--- [[User:Troque\|Troque]] ([[User talk:Troque\|talk]]) 20:14, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
		+
		+	I like that you are very well-discerned regarding your preferences. I will take note for future reference: Python on Sublime for Trixie, and not Java on Eclipse ''':)''' Actually if you like Python, you might want to explore PyCharm (https://www.jetbrains.com/pycharm/). They have a free community edition, or as a student you can get the full-featured version with a student license. Not that an IDE is even necessary, of course…I don’t mind just using this thing called a “text editor” and a “command line” to develop software ''':)'''
		+
		+	In the end, change is indeed the status quo in computer science, and to a degree this is the case for everything, really. Acceptance of this is the beginning, I would say, of a different perspective that is not quite so “angry” as coders can be, according to Paul Ford.
		+
		+	—''[[User:Dondi\|Dondi]] ([[User talk:Dondi\|talk]]) 18:37, 10 October 2015 (PDT)''

	==Erich Yanoschik==		==Erich Yanoschik==

@@ Line 187: / Line 187: @@
 #*I wouldn’t exactly call coders “angry” people but I would agree with the article on a lot of other points regarding coders. They do seem like very passionate people that are emotionally invested in their work and in the coding languages that they pursue. I also agree with the article’s point that coders/people involved with computer science tend to communicate efficiently, emotionally, and quickly. I thought it was interesting how the article portrayed every professional coder as being somewhat uncertain about his industry, future, and his skills; computer science seems to be a rapidly evolving field with related industries that, according to the article, constantly shift and change in their demands and expectations. Regarding biologists, I really wouldn’t call them “angry” at all but I do feel that there a few parallels between biologists and coders. Many biologists, like coders, decide to focus on a specific aspect of the field and grow to be immensely passionate about it. The field of biology, somewhat like the field of computer science, changes a lot and exhibits a constant influx of new trends, methods, and interests in the field and its related industries. I do feel, however, that the kind of uncertainty and “fear” that the article ascribes to coders is not exactly common in the field of biology; biologists seem like people that aren’t very attached or emotionally invested in tools/methods and, thus, change comes easier for them.
 [[User:Blitvak|Blitvak]] ([[User talk:Blitvak|talk]]) 19:21, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
 == Trixie Roque ==

@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 #*I agree that coders are pretty angry.  All the online forums I've read really do reinforce Ford's "blurters".  This is just due to exactly what he talks about in the beginning of the second section,  technology changes so rapidly that people become scared they are falling behind.  Also, coders become attached to the tools they use and as a result are quick to defend their tool of choice at all costs.  From my experience Biology has not been progressing at the rate that the computer industry has progressed recently, as a result many of the reasons coders are "angry" don't exist.  There isn't as wide a variety of necessary tools for biologists when compared to computer science, so they can hardly argue about which one is better.  An "angry" aspect of each discipline I think is in the blunt talk that is encouraged in scientists, and can be seen in both fields.  I enjoy that though, so I wouldn't categorize it as an "angry" thing.
 [[User:Jwoodlee|Jwoodlee]] ([[User talk:Jwoodlee|talk]]) 19:40, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
 ==Brandon Litvak==

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 #* I don't think that coders or biologists are angry. What I do think, though, is that they are feeling the pressure. What you have in both of these fields are very smart people who feel very passionate about what they do and what they study--maybe it's because they want to help others, or because they seek to understand the world. Either way, both biologists and computer scientists feel like what they are doing is very important, and not only of personal importance but even of importance to humanity as a whole, and from these beliefs comes a certain stubbornness. Both fields are changing and progressing at incredibly rapid paces. Everyone wants to be right because no one wants their work proved wrong and their field to become obsolete. It's this competition and fast-paced nature that I think makes biologists and coders come off as angry, but this intensity is really what is driving these fields forward.
 [[User:Kzebrows|Kzebrows]] ([[User talk:Kzebrows|talk]]) 18:43, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
 ==Jake Woodlee==

@@ Line 141: / Line 141: @@
 --[[User:Malverso|Malverso]] ([[User talk:Malverso|talk]]) 18:14, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
 [[Category: Journal Entry]]
 [[Category: Shared]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:36, 10 October 2015
Line 125:		Line 125:

	-- [[User:Jkuroda\|Jkuroda]] ([[User talk:Jkuroda\|talk]]) 18:12, 28 September 2015 (PDT)		-- [[User:Jkuroda\|Jkuroda]] ([[User talk:Jkuroda\|talk]]) 18:12, 28 September 2015 (PDT)
		+
		+	I’m beginning to think that we should fine an avenue to expose more students to Python, after seeing the responses in this shared journal entry page. As someone who does do Python professionally, I will agree that it has a lot of appealing characteristics. But more importantly, reflecting on what makes those very characteristics appealing in the first place is what leads to deeper insight on programming language design. This awareness also takes some of the edge off shifting languages; once you realize how certain concepts really are the same even if they do not look the same in different languages, moving between them becomes easier. Many of the systems for which I do dev today are multi-language—it is not uncommon for me to toggle between two source files, each in a different language. When your brain gets acclimated to that, lots of possibilities open up nicely.
		+
		+	—''[[User:Dondi\|Dondi]] ([[User talk:Dondi\|talk]]) 16:36, 10 October 2015 (PDT)''

	----		----