What can I do with a CS degree if I suck at programming...

>t. fresh out-of-uni junior thinking nobody in the industry uses theory because he's just a code-monkey
You routinely use complexity when designing a system, because it's essential to its performance. Nobody credible goes around throwing quicksort at everything just because it's the one sorting algo on the stdlib of his language of choice and is "good enough".
People responsible for architecture do go through the work of ensuring that the data they deal with is processed by appropriate algos.
>coming up with modifications to RRB-trees is architecture, not theory - nevermind the proofs and papers
Then we have the people working on Reason, Infer and dozens other tools that produced countless papers during their work. Oh sure, nobody uses CS theory.
You being a code-monkey doesn't mean nobody uses theory. You'll get there in time, no worries. Right now jusk work on your programming skills because they're highly valuable when designing new systems - just theory doesn't cut it and having experience being a code-monkey is kind of expected.

Lucky for you CS is about the theory of computation and has nothing to do with programming, it's merely a tool used.
Unlucky for you you're too dumb to use a fucking hammer. Give up now.

>You routinely use complexity when designing a system, because it's essential to its performance. Nobody credible goes around throwing quicksort at everything just because it's the one sorting algo on the stdlib of his language of choice and is "good enough".
That's not what I said either. But merely CONSIDERING the space complexity is not the same as CALCULATING it, so thank you for proving my point.

>Oh sure, nobody uses CS theory.
They don't. Engineering != CS.

>You being a code-monkey doesn't mean nobody uses theory. You'll get there in time, no worries.
Dude, I have a PhD.

>CONSIDERING is not the same as CALCULATING
Don't want to burst your bubble, but when you publish a paper, you both CALCULATE and PROVE complexity of your algorithm. Which is coincidentally what people architecting systems at FAANG do.
>They don't. Engineering != CS
First of all, nothing short of mission-critical systems at avio/grid infra comes even close to engineering as practiced in any other discipline.
Second of all, when you COME UP with an algorithm and publish a paper on it, PROVING its properties, you are fucking doing theory you potato.
>Dude, i have a PhD
In shitposting. Most of us do here on this kyrghyz yak-milking forum.
Now go ahead and tell me how improving current data structures and publishing papers on it isn't theory, it's great fun.

>but when you publish a paper, you both CALCULATE and PROVE complexity of your algorithm. Which is coincidentally what people architecting systems at FAANG do.
Please link one of these papers then. FAANG engineers usually don't publish papers, a handful do, but those are NOT your average engineers.

>Now go ahead and tell me how improving current data structures and publishing papers on it isn't theory,
You're shifting the goalpost you disingenuous fuck.

This is what I replied to:
>When you're the one architecting the next framework à la React.
Please show me what groundbreaking algorithms they invented for React.js. Stop trying to shift this to what researchers employed in literal research positions are doing.

>link
research.facebook.com
>those are NOT your average engineers
An average engineer is a code-monkey. We're talking about people architecting systems.
>show me what groundbreaking algorithms thei invented for React
You can start by taking a look at their diffing algo, go through the history and you'll get links to proofs.
>Stop trying to shift this to what researchers employed in literal research positions are doing.
Too bad, those are the people architecting most systems at FAANG you numbnut.

>ram usage, not space complexity

Attached: 1512287655455.png (936x772, 28K)

>research.facebook.com
Not software engineers, these are literal researchers.

>An average engineer is a code-monkey. We're talking about people architecting systems.
No, my first posts clearly refereed to average engineers: and Nice try shifting the goal post though, you truly are disingenuous.

>You can start by taking a look at their diffing algo, go through the history and you'll get links to proofs.
I asked for actual papers.

>Too bad, those are the people architecting most systems at FAANG you numbnut.
Architects rarely look into algorithms.

>implying they are the same
Yes, clearly a hash table storing 100,000 sparsely used pointers in a flat table consumes as much RAM as creating N-children tree nodes

>implying they are not closely related

>What can I do with a CS degree if I suck at programming?
get better, duh.

I would post a brainlet reaction pic if I had. They aren't, though. They are merely related, not so much closely related. Single pointer linked lists and double pointer linked lists have the exact same space complexity, but the double pointer linked list clearly consumes more memory.

>Single pointer linked lists and double pointer linked lists have the exact same space complexity
Don't worry about brainlet reaction pics, I have plenty for you.

Attached: polbase-5acd4a2aea64e.png (645x773, 71K)

You'd better post one for your self then.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-07-10_15-38-17.png (687x169, 17K)

he probably thinks the size allocation for the pointer variables is a factor, haha what a retard ahahah epic

>i don't know what big O notation means: the post
You're an embarrassment, end yourself.

Post literally any source that says that doubly linked lists have a different space complexity than singly linked lists. Protip: space complexity doesn't factor the size of the pointer.

Another protip: neither does it care about cache locality, another area where engineers look at memory optimisations instead of just analyzing the complexity.

>space complexity doesn't factor the size of the pointer

Attached: blet.jpg (1462x2046, 98K)

>Post literally any source that says that doubly linked lists have a different space complexity than singly linked lists.
You don't need a source to figure that out, and we are talking about the amount of pointers here, not pointer size. A doubly linked list of course uses twice the amount of pointers.
Also, pointer size is actually very relevant in non-meme space complexity analysis: in particular, for efficient structures like the one used in the four Russians trick fo compute minimum range queries in constant time or building an LCP array to perform a substring search in a string, every single BIT is taken into account.
And these are just the first two examples that come to mind.
We'll talk again once you get past Algorithms 101.

>You don't need a source to figure that out,
Clearly you do, because you didn't know.

>and we are talking about the amount of pointers here, not pointer size. A doubly linked list of course uses twice the amount of pointers.
Fine, but it's still irrelevant when we talk about space complexity. That's why I argue that examining memory use is something different.

>Also, pointer size is actually very relevant in non-meme space complexity analysis:
>in non-meme space complexity analyis
In other words, when you look at memory use and not merely space complexity. Which was my point all along.

>in particular, for efficient structures
Again, I said analysing memory use.

>We'll talk again once you get past Algorithms 101.
Your butthurt is showing.

Computer Science is the gender studies of the STEM world. Literally worse than useless.

Pic related.

Attached: 20110217.gif (540x786, 85K)

>space complexity is the same as the amount of memory you use
The state of neo-Jow Forums, everyone.

Alright now it's clear you're either retarded or trolling.
>Clearly you do, because you didn't know.
What didn't I know? Meme oversimplified complexity analysis? No thanks.
>Fine, but it's still irrelevant when we talk about space complexity.
How is it irrelevant? It literally doubles the amount of memory needed to allocate pointers.
>That's why I argue that examining memory use is something different.
Gee, I wonder why?
>In other words, when you look at memory use and not merely space complexity. Which was my point all along.
What meme school did you go to where they say "space complexity" isn't tightly related to ram usage?
>Again, I said analysing memory use
If you actually knew what I was talkig about (which you didn't) you'd know that the real challenge to perform minimum range queries in constant time is building a SPACE-efficient data structure. And through the four Russians trick and a couple of reductions to and from the lowest common ancestor problem, it's possible to obtain a data structure which occupies O(n) SPACE that allows you to solve the query in constant time.
How amazing is that? And to do so, you need to analyze every single bit.
Study more and come back.
>Your butthurt is showing.
Your definition of "butthurt" is as bizarre as your definition of "space complexity".

>t. code artisan
Not the same, of course (think about OS-specific details in allocation), but foolish to think it isn't closely related.

You stupid nigger, you posted and now you are back-pedalling like there is now tomorrow.

Your "point" has been what I've stated the entire time.

Imagine being this butthurt.

>back-pedalling
What are you talking about? Stop making pathetic attempts at moving goalposts.
Ok retard. Call me again when your programs end up using 10× the memory you predicted.

>What are you talking about? Stop making pathetic attempts at moving goalposts
Fuck off, I know you posted and and . They bear all your markings.

My argument was literally all along that analysing memory use and memory access patterns is something else than what you call "meme complexity analysis"... These are points I already made you stupid fuck. YOU are currently trying to take credit for points I have already made, THIS is called moving the goal post.

You're basically reiterating my point and pretending that you didn't say things you clearly said and that things I said were your original claims, committing a massive straw man fallacy (by misrepresenting my argument) and committing a equivocation fallacy (by trying to redefine what space complexity is to mean the same as examining memory use).

You already admitted I was correct, now fuck off before you continue to embarrass yourself.

>Not the same, of course
So you admit that you were wrong then?

>My argument was literally all along that analysing memory use and memory access patterns is something else than what you call "meme complexity analysis"... These are points I already made you stupid fuck. YOU are currently trying to take credit for points I have already made, THIS is called moving the goal post.
No it wasn't, fuck off. You said complexity analysis is something it isn't, ad explained why.
After getting BTFO you're now trying to appropriate my points, like a fucking politician.
>You're basically reiterating my point and pretending that you didn't say things you clearly said and that things I said were your original claims, committing a massive straw man fallacy (by misrepresenting my argument) and committing a equivocation fallacy (by trying to redefine what space complexity is to mean the same as examining memory use).
Yes, they are all my posts. I'm not pretending I "never said things".
And space complexity literally is analyzing memory use. That's where you were wrong. Fuck off again, learn the meaning of words you use and prepare the rope.

Who said they are the same?

>No it wasn't, fuck off. You said complexity analysis is something it isn't
Dude, you fucking literally wrote Big O notation in , the very same thing you are now calling "meme complexity analysis". Just fucking stop.

>After getting BTFO you're now trying to appropriate my points,
This is the worst "no u" ever, you're not only trying to take credit for my points, you're also copying my accusations of you doing this. Wtf?! Are you mentally ill?

>And space complexity literally is analyzing memory use
No, it isn't. Space complexity is Big O notation, you clearly said that yourself in where you accused me of not knowing what it meant AFTER I had already pointed out to you that Big O and space complexity analysis doesn't take pointer size or number of pointers into account.

Just fuck off.

Not the guy you're responding to, but this poster clearly conflated them:

Space complexity is Big O notation, you clearly said that yourself in (You)
I'm sorry, that post doesn't seem to say that.
>Dude, you fucking literally wrote Big O notation in (You), the very same thing you are now calling "meme complexity analysis". Just fucking stop.
What about no? Since when big O == complexity analysis?
>This is the worst "no u" ever, you're not only trying to take credit for my points, you're also copying my accusations of you doing this. Wtf?! Are you mentally ill?
"Copying" your wrongful accusations, except mine are correct.
>Big O and space complexity analysis doesn't take pointer size or number of pointers into account.
However, my friend, it does. That's what I call meme complexity analysis, not "big O".
After all these posts it's clear that
>you don't know the meaning of the terms you use
>you have poor reading comprehension
>you get so mad you don't even know what you're advocating
>unironically use words like "strawman" to cover up your lack of arguments
You're not gonna make it like this.

>Since when big O == complexity analysis?

Attached: brainlet-1.png (543x443, 24K)

So are now procedures and results with annexed notation the same thing now?

It doesn't seem like it.

>I'm sorry, that post doesn't seem to say that.
It does when you read it in the context of the post it is replying to.

>What about no? Since when big O == complexity analysis?
Dude, just fucking stop... This is extremely embarrassing, you're clearly demonstrating traits of severe mental illness at this point.

>It does when you read it in the context of the post it is replying to.
>posts mean what i want them to mean and only what i want them.to mean

>Dude, just fucking stop... This is extremely embarrassing, you're clearly demonstrating traits of severe mental illness at this point.
Truly comforting from someone who can't into proper reading comprehension.

Just stop. Space complexity is synonymous with expressing it as a bound limitation (aka using Big O). For fuck's sake, they even justify it for Turing complete machines using formal proof.

You are clearly back-pedalling for being called out on the fact that space complexity, although related, isn't the same as memory use or memory access.

I'm done entertaining your severe autism now, you will most likely post angry posts in response, but anyone reading this thread can see your obvious back-pedalling, samefagging, straw man fallacy and equivocation fallacy, and that you are generally being disingenuous as fuck.

Get well.

>You are clearly back-pedalling for being called out on the fact that space complexity, although related, isn't the same as memory use or memory access.
Which is what I've been saying the entire time. Not the same, but closely related.
Also you're unable to distinguish the result from the procedure.
>but anyone reading this thread can see your obvious back-pedalling, samefagging, straw man fallacy and equivocation fallacy, and that you are generally being disingenuous as fuck.
Ok kid. Sperging out a few reddit-tier fallacy won't make you sound smarter.

>Also you're unable to distinguish the result from the procedure.
If the result is a Big O notation assuming a Turing machine, you are clearly applying the wrong procedure when trying to understand or analyse complex memory architectures and make memory optimisations. This was my initial point in and has been throughout.

If you are arguing that space complexity (aka "meme complexity analysis", by your own words) is the same as memory use and considering memory locality, then you are wrong.

If you're saying that I was right all along, but merely used the wrong definitions/words/semantics, then you are suffering from crippling autism since you apparently already agree with me, but are hung up on my choice of words.

Take your pick.

>If you're saying that I was right all along, but merely used the wrong definitions/words/semantics, then you are suffering from crippling autism since you apparently already agree with me, but are hung up on my choice of words.
Now THAT's some masterful backpedalling if I've ever seen one.

I'm trying to make your autistic mind understand.

I still stand by my point that "space complexity" refers to analysing algorithm's computational space requirements by assuming a Turing machine and that you are wrong when you say it is the same as analysing memory usage. The whole "you're unable to distinguish the result from the procedure" is still nonsensical and pathetic, if you ask me.

You've already admitted that you don't think they are the same, only closely related, so I already consider this an admission of failure by your part, so don't push it user; you haven't actually replied anything substantial to anything in my post, and you have merely repeated (and copied) claims of back-pedalling.

Since you're already admitting that analysing memory use and memory location isn't the same as complexity analysis, you are acknowledging my initial point. I'm just giving you the opportunity to gracefully accept defeat, but apparently your crippling autism is a hindering for you.