|
2b1s I have a feeling that you will happiest as a "Business Analyst" at some insurance company.
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2011 21:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Jam2 posted:on the wait-list at MIT. If you wind up at CSAIL let me know I'm on 7th floor Stata.
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2011 19:04
|
|
|
2banks1swap.avi posted:Please tell me those guys at least have advancement within their employer and pay raises to match inflation and experience. 2b1s, from your posting pattern here and elsewhere I think your enthusiasm for finance and interest in a computing career for its financial rewards I really think you should be looking to be in some kind of quantitative analysis (or software support thereof) role. These opportunities are out there - I recently learned of such an opening doing software engineering and analysis for an Ivy endowment. Sweet gig with huge bonuses, but way above your experience level. If you want these types of roles you will need, in addition to engineering skills, a solid background in finance, statistical analysis, and rapid application development.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2011 22:45
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Can you elaborate on what exactly this means? I'm not parsing it correctly I guess Sounds to me like he wants the set of words in the dictionary such that the set contains more than one word, all the words in the set are spelled with the same set of letters (are anagrams), the anagrams are of length as long or longer than the length of the words in any other set of anagrams ("has the longest anagram"), and the set contains more words than any other set of anagrams of the same length ("is the largest set of words"). Or I could be wrong and by "anagrams" he means "grammatically correct sentences constructed from words in the dictionary that are anagrams of other grammatically correct sentences constructed from words in the dictionary", but given the timings he quoted I doubt this is the correct interpretation.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 20:53
|
|
|
TasteMyHouse posted:I read that as "the set of words with the largest amount of letters that can be rearranged into a set of valid words with no letters left over" Hmmm, perhaps it needs more clarification.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2011 22:26
|
|
|
Ithaqua posted:I wouldn't want to work somewhere where clever was a low bar. My goal is to be the second dumbest person on the team. That is what he means by "clever is a low bar". Clever is just the minimum standard.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2011 19:55
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:I'd like to stay with this company as it's a great learning experience and I love the people. I don't want to be disloyal but I can't make promises to stay when other dev shops actually pay developer wages. It is up to you to determine whether you value dollars or the day-to-day satisfaction of your current job more. As for loyalty, there is an important distinction between personal loyalty and company loyalty. It is ok for you to feel personal loyalty to your co-workers and if they truly have personal loyalty to you they will understand and support you if what is best for you is to move on. When it comes to company loyalty you need to judge whether this company would be loyal to you during down times (LOL) or if they would can you the first quarter it made the books look good. Are they paying you a fair wage or do they only hold onto you because you are such a bargain working well under your worth? Be loyal to them in accord with their loyalty and fairness to you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2011 21:54
|
|
|
baquerd posted:A year's worth of savings in your mid 20's could literally be a half million dollars or more by retirement if you didn't do your 3 month splurge. How much will it cost me to buy a few months of being an unencumbered 20-something during my retirement? Oh wait, you can't buy time back.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2011 06:54
|
|
|
Puddy1 posted:I feel like I have to memorize all this computer science stuff when it comes to data structures and algorithms, it's all a bit daunting. I finished school in May 2011, but the last time I had to deal with stuff like binary search trees and other abstract data structures was like 2008. You have to brush up from time to time. My algorithms class was over 15 years ago and the day-to-day work over that period has been vastly more tedium than pondering algorithms, so I have to look stuff up (that I probably aced on the test 15 years ago) all the time.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
I'm fairly certain everyone around here will tell you that the way to get in to development is not through more Info Sys education. Either get into a development oriented program or start hacking away on personal and open-source projects until you have a portfolio and network of people that know your work.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
And if you don't know the answer to that question, go onto Codeacademy.com and bang out Javascript projects until you get bored.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
But it is just so much more impressive to say something ostentatiously verbose like "use a Proxy Pattern" rather than "use a proxy".
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Strong Sauce posted:Everybody just uses Singleton pattern anyways. I made a Sigh Expression as I sipped my Coffee Fluid.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Sedro posted:You can get around it with a Service Locator, but that's also an antipattern because it hides dependencies. I don't want to instantiate something only to get an exception because of a missing dependency, tell me at compile time. How do you feel about dependency injection and run-time component wiring in general (as these "hide dependencies" at compile time) ?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
No Safe Word posted:Yup. They're not qualified to make technical talent evaluations fixed
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Goop posted:This is something I hardly took into account and that explains a lot. I'm not deep into anything yet, but I would imagine the work would be much more gratifying for me. It seems clear that if done right, the results are worth worth long hours.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
Sab669 posted:I've never really looked at any listings out in silicone valley.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
Haywood Japwnme posted:That or apply to grad school. Whoa now, there is nothing more seat-of-the-pants than what a grad student hacks up. It is just enough to get numbers for a paper with the added confidence that no reviewer will ever bother to look at the code.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
dmccaff posted:Sorry, when I said 100% focused on the job I meant that as in no outside projects, the only thing that should be on my agenda is the job. By this do you mean that the company doesn't have an equivalent of Google's 20% projects or that you have signed a document that basically gives the company rights to every line of code you write both on and off the clock? If it is neither of these cases - who cares what they tell you, the company has no say over what you do with your time outside the office.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
Yeah I once worked under a contract like that as well, its why I asked.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2012 23:19
|
|
|
Doghouse posted:I am a 27 year old English major, with only two programming classes under my belt, who wants to go to grad school in order to hopefully pursue a career in programming. I really liked the programming classes I took, and the degree I have now is barely worth the paper it's printed on, so I figured that one of the computer science master's programs designed for - or at least accommodating of - people with non-CS degrees would be the way to go. I personally know two non-degree programmers who got into the field by way of just demonstrating programming ability and building a resume. One was by way of web-design/flash/javascript and one was by way of technical-art/MEL-script. In both cases, once they had that first job on the resume that said "programmer" the lack of degree was dominated by having skills in demand and having lots of connections from previous work. Only consider grad school if you have no other way of working your way into the profession (and I guess a TAship that doesn't put you into debt counts).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 23:30
|
|
|
Doghouse posted:That's an interesting point. The truth is that I am not a "natural" by any means and I am not sure I would be able to teach myself everything I need to know. The structure of school would help me a lot. If you like structure, then before you do anything else try your hand at Python the Hard Way. Then maybe go onto Code Academy and follow their Python and Javascript tracks.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Doghouse posted:Strikes me as strange that colleges wouldn't wise up and start teaching people the actual skills that they need, especially for such an important and thriving field. The answer that every professor and department head will give you is that college is not meant to be vocational training (especially not a Masters program). On a theoretical level this is a correct stance especially considering the modern focus of academia on research. However, in practice the larger portion of undergrads and hiring managers treat a CS program as technical school for the vocation of programming. It is a pretty lame situation but it is the situation.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Look at it from the other way around. How does your master's degree help your software development for a given company? I'd say that a good Master's Thesis is a proof by demonstration that a person can: - survey the state-of-the-art in a technical area - identify an interesting technical challenge in that area - independently design a solution to this problem - convince a panel of superiors that this solution is worthy of implementation - independently implement this design - design and execute experiments that will support this solution - write a document rationally supporting this solution with theory and experimental results - verbally argue in support of this solution in front of a panel of superiors All of which is relevant to functioning in a real-world software development team and all of which requires a much higher level of effort at the Master's level than at the undergraduate level.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Can I ask what dependency injection is? And Inversion of Control? I've looked around for it, and usually I start seeing junk about XML configuration, and I click the little "X" button on my browser tab, because I have better things to do. Here is my go at a quick-yet-pedantic explanation of Dependency Injection: What DI is not Dependency Injection should be considered in contrast to direct composition. In direct composition, an object creates all the components that it needs. Direct composition is good in some ways - i.e. the object knows how to completely construct itself, so another object can simply call the constructor and know that it has a complete, working object (useful for cases where you want Resource-Allocation-Is-Initialization). However, composition means that not only must the object know the interface for each component (an interface dependency), but the object must also know how to make each subcomponent (introducing either a constructor or concrete factory dependency), must contain the logic for selecting subcomponents (if different classes might be used for a given component) and the object is now responsible for managing the life-cycle of each component. What DI is Dependency Injection eliminates the need for an object to know how to create the things it uses, eliminates the object's need for component-selection logic, and eliminates the object's responsibility for managing the lifecycle of the things it uses. It achieves this by informing (i.e. injecting) an object of the things it will use (i.e. its dependencies) from an outside source. Although you still have an interface-dependency, this shifts the responsibilities for class-selection, construction and lifecycle management to a higher level. Why DI is used Note that this does not necessarily simplify the code as a whole, and that is not why DI is done. With DI you have shifted responsibility rather than eliminated it, but you have abstracted your code in a way that makes it more maintainable and more flexible. It is more maintainable because now the object is agnostic to the concrete type of its collaborators, so the code need not be changed if different collaborators and class-selection logic are introduced in the future. It is more flexible because now the object can be used in designs where having full ownership of a collaborator is not appropriate, such as when objects form more of a network of peers rather than a hierarchy of sub-components. Even though the logic for these things still exist at the higher level, that DI design has split the responsibility for managing objects and doing work in such a way that makes objects that do work more reusable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
XML has nothing to do with it. There are many ways to do DI and it sounds like your "driver" is one way. Sorry if you have an aversion to the name of a concept.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Heads up: It appears Project Euler had some kind of security explosion and has been taken down until further notice. From the message on the site it sounds like it might have involved theft of hashed passwords. Take appropriate precautions if you had an account!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 04:55
|
|