If you haven't read this book from cover to cover you aren't a programmer

good programmers learn this shit by doing it not by reading it a book

You can either waste your time trying to reinvent the wheel or you can read about it in the book.

Nah man. Most of this is too mathematical and theoretical to learn it "by doing it"... I was self taught programmer but can say that going to Uni made me a better problem solver, which is essentially what's programming about.

>Most of this is too mathematical and theoretical to learn it "by doing it"
what practical algorithm have you learned that was too mathematical and theoretical to pick up yourself in the field

>Engineering
>Blue collar
The fact is that software engineering just isn't engineering. There's no CPEng accreditation for it, so it doesn't count.

by dictionary definition of the word, it's engineering

its a good book, but you need to search the internet to find implementations for the pseudo code provided by the book

By the opinions of every professional engineering organisation on the planet, it isn't.

>MUH REAL PROGRAMMERS!!!
Lots of cucks can't even do fizzbuzz properly and "program" (read: copy stackoverflow) in a meme language, yet they have pretty decent jobs. You don't need to read the whole Cormen book to be ahead of the curve, user.

Engineering is not blue collar work and has never been.

what does that matter? the process is the same even if it doesn't have the same pedigree

>Carpentry is engineering! They just don't have the same pedigree!

my iron ring says otherwise, fag

carpentry is more of a craft

>plumbing is engineering! No difference

yeah there's a huge difference, that's like comparing a programmer to an IT guy

This 100% my professor always warned against this. Also said a good programmer is a lazy one. I'm guessing advocating code reuse.

>Leaf
If it's any consolation, you'll never be able to work in Australia. They're bringing in a national registry for engineers and softwarefags aren't invited.

>thinks he can "pick up" several man-decades of results for an entire branch of mathematical research "in the field" patching frameworks together
wew

Attached: 1522556516837.jpg (796x767, 62K)

yeah thats not an example friend

eh, not really.

the idea behind laziness translating to being a good programmer is rooted in the idea that you'll always find the solution that leaves you most free to do nothing--generally speaking, that's going to be a highly efficient solution that does not require you to constantly revisit/patch it. which necessarily requires you to be a good programmer.

any number of intractable problems taught in upper-division computer science courses at any reputable University.

like?

It's completely blue collar work

quantum factoring
dealing effectively with NP-completeness
some problems involving dynamic programming

yeah thats not an argument buddy

the first two answers have absolutely nothing to do with practical programming, and I'm interested in a concrete example of the third

If you haven't read this book from cover to cover you aren't a programmer.

Attached: 514XDDJK2HL._SX379_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (381x499, 34K)

first of all, practical programming doesn't necessarily have anything to do with high level problem solving using programmatic principles; I literally used the phrase "intractable problems". if you thought for some reason we were talking about practical programming, I'd be interested to know what company you work for.

well yes, my initial proposition was "what practical algorithm have you learned that was too mathematical and theoretical to pick up yourself in the field", and those practical programming princples are the building blocks you use to solve higher level, difficult problems when you're trying to write a real-world program

>dealing with NP-hard problems
>not practical
youtu.be/rYlwiJ0vr_4

Attached: 1523603001414.png (694x801, 77K)

I'm not sure it's necessary to argue the practicality of being able to recognize an intractable problem--which necessarily requires a sufficiently high level of understanding such that it's intractability is recognizable in the first place (so you don't waste your time). at least that was the prevailing opinion when i was exposed to them.

although I do take your point that software engineering is becoming increasingly vocational in nature.

I'm an engineer. Want to guess how many times I've even picked up a tool, let alone used one?

Im looking for complete beginner books for introduction to algorithms and algorithmic thinking.
I mean like from scratch.
Any good books about that?

Attached: school-boy-collection-high-school-003.jpg (775x1024, 102K)

print all prime numbers from 1 to 200

engineering is always 'vocational' in nature, you sound like an ivory tower academic
anyone with intermediate knowledge in the field can recognize an intractable problem

you're not an engineer unless you're drawing technical diagrams with a compass and ruler

>Implying we don't have draftsmen to do that

do they soak them in acid too to make the blueprint?

what does that have to do with my question

Attached: 1539323919898.jpg (4032x3024, 3.29M)

Kek I bet some of them are on acid.

agree to disagree.

its n/2+1

get some basic algebra book and start from there

If you've taken hs algebra OP's pic related is a fine book. No point buying/downloading something if you aren't going to read it though.
just sitting down and trying something like is a good way to just start thinking in terms of algorithmic problem solving. There are plenty of diverse references on the internet, from youtube to universities online published materials, that can help as well.

After finishing HS i never done a calculation in like 6-7 years now. I just started getting into python programming and i understand basic syntax and all but i completely forgot about algorithms and anything other than PEMDAS really.

even tho you can write programs without maths at all, if you have to do problem solving with python you really need to know algorithmic thinking to get it done. looks like i have to start from complete zero as all i remember is doing toddler's algorithms.

and i already bought python books which i read and keep notes and in general study unlike back in hs which i was a dumb dumb and couldn't wait for the class to finish to go play videogames.

cringe.

where is the cringe?. pic has a perfect script to print (0,n) numbers and if they are prime or not.

If you haven't read all these books from cover to cover you aren't a programmer.

Attached: TAOCP.jpg (500x431, 31K)

Give me 1 (ONE) non-trivial thing you learned from this book

This book is trivial shit. Barely any proofs, font size same as children books, the most trivial algorithms in every chapter.
Get TAOCP.

It's sqrt(n) + 1 actually