I just read one of his (Linus Torvalds) quote "Software is like sex: it's better when it's free." LOL
do you agree with that?

I still think (I might be wrong though) that he won't have any problem with digital signal processing or cryptography in C. The algorithm is/ will be different but He still going to use the same tool (language) that He masters.

It's more than just an algorithm and language. What I'm trying to say is that raw 'programming' skill with any language is not that important. What's important is knowledge of the field of application for the program. Any "Sufficient" coder can write something that works when given a spec sheet and problem but that programmer (Linus or anyone else) will have a hard time being better than the specialist who programs in that field if they are also "Sufficient".

 

It's more than just an algorithm and language. What I'm trying to say is that raw 'programming' skill with any language is not that important. What's important is knowledge of the field of application for the program. Any "Sufficient" coder can write something that works when given a spec sheet and problem but that programmer (Linus or anyone else) will have a hard time being better than the specialist who programs in that field if they are also "Sufficient".

Of course, and that is obvious!
No one knows all the fields. To even be able to come up with an algorithm that solve a particular problem you must first understand the problem (field of application).

 

Of course, and that is obvious!
No one knows all the fields. To even be able to come up with an algorithm that solve a particular problem you must first understand the problem (field of application).

Yes, it's obvious and that's why 'programming' skill level becomes less and less important the more you know about programming things that matter in real world applications vs some grade on a test or evaluation.

 

i consider programming to be the new literacy regardless of field of work. simply being able to read is soooo 1920... ;-)

everyone can use some electronic device but i tend to rank the skill based on how much they know of what runs behind, scale should be something that is more... logarithmic:
a: knows nothing,
b: can read and write,
c: proficient to read and write and has a clue of various current technologies although not in detail
d: familiar with technology (software and hardware for example),
e: more than familiar with technology
f: expert (directly involved in design and development of current technologies)

most people around seem to be b, or b+, few get higher.

an example:

 

Just have a few categories, and run it like one of those questionaires in girlfriend magazine, and you can predict a little engineers future by your own opinion.

 

I just read one of his (Linus Torvalds) quote "Software is like sex: it's better when it's free." LOL
do you agree with that?

I still think (I might be wrong though) that he won't have any problem with digital signal processing or cryptography in C. The algorithm is/ will be different but He still going to use the same tool (language) that He masters.

I don't think that's nearly as true as we might think at first blush. Not only are the algorithms different, but how those algorithms are best implement are very different, as well. The "tricks of the trade", so to speak, are very different. For instance, unless he's done crypto implementations, it's unlikely that he's ever given any thought to designing his implementation such that all paths through the code take the exact same number of cycles regardless of either the data or the key, or of considering whether the number of zero-to-one transitions and vice-versa can leak information out of the system by profiling the power consumption of the processor.