Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
If you think 'Physics is easy" then by all means please tell us how Gravity actually works. Because we don't actually understand gravity fully. If you have an actual unified formula for gravity and relativity there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you.
If that is what you think about programming, I'm afraid you've chosen the wrong job.
Programming requires structured thinking, logic and a basic understanding of languages. And it's a lot about maths. As a matter of fact maths is exactly why most students fail the courses. "Boolean algebra" is pure maths for example.
Real life math: invent new formula to get result you want... or even invent formula you dont even know what result will be.
Programmers need math too, especially if it's graphics or animation.
Physics is "DLC" for math.
... so a lawyer > programmer
Unless you're self-taught and already programming to solve problems on your free time, then don't bother wasting time in school. There are mountains of resources about programming on the internet, for free, right now. No excuse to not already be programming if you really want to.
Employers want competent.
Not "trainable", not "almost good enough", not "maybe, but not on my team.", and certainly not a young hotshot touting his degree while unable to actually complete a single basic program from start to finish.
Not really true, all depends on what language you're using and what type of a developer you are.
Your attitude towards math and physics says a lot about stuff...
You seem to be confusing the work of scientists and mathematicians with the work of engineers etc. in applying fruits of the scientist and mathematicians' labours.
Using/memorising a few rules and formulae are tools of these trades, not the job itself.
The "challenge" within Physics is to identify something (such as observation in nature) and to then provide a reliable model for which results are in agreement. This is difficult, not easy.
What's easy is following the presentation of such models, the relationships they identify or the implicaitons thereof after they have been ascertained - and in rearranging those relations to hopefully generate further hypothesis.
The challenge within mathematics is in identifying proofs to generalised solutions. This is profoundly difficult, especially given the strangeloops - and in fact, may even be quite impossible given Gödel's incompleteness. What's easy is using the relationships already painstakingly identified and applying these understood, proven areas within application.
___
In my experience, programming is essentially mathematics. The language (as in terminology, not programming langauge) and process involved is derived from mathematics of hundreds of years ago.
In mathematics, you would have arguments passed to a function and that function might involve some transformations or logic, where operations and values are given identifying symbols
This is the essence of much programming.
With the advent of computer/information technology, original abstract mathematical concepts (a la Shannon, Hilbert, Mascheroni or Boltzmann etc.) are now granted a more 'real' application. This is something that has also occured frequently within physical science.
Programming is literally made of math and logic.
Same with programming. I can become if i wanted to but i would not be able to do the job well.