The PS2’s backwards compatibility from the engineer who built it (2020)(freelansations.medium.com)
freelansations.medium.com
The PS2’s backwards compatibility from the engineer who built it (2020)
https://freelansations.medium.com/the-story-of-the-ps2s-backwards-compatibility-from-the-engineer-who-built-it-ec39cf5a0353
113 comments
> The other surprising thing is that you could actually run the Z80 in parallel with your 68000 when running a Genesis game. We used the Z80 as a sound co-processor running MIDI and playing sampled drums without bothering the 68000.
I always thought that was a key reason to include a Z80. A dedicated sound processor (often Z80) was a mainstay of arcade games from the mid-80s and onward and SEGA's engineers would surely have been familiar with such a design. It might even have helped when porting arcade games.
I always thought that was a key reason to include a Z80. A dedicated sound processor (often Z80) was a mainstay of arcade games from the mid-80s and onward and SEGA's engineers would surely have been familiar with such a design. It might even have helped when porting arcade games.
They were because sega was, at the time, an arcade manufacturer first. The Megadrive is the console version of the system 16 after all.
Do you happen to have a source of this? (Copetti?)
Previously:
- 2023: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34944067
- 2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22501566
- 2023: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34944067
- 2020: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22501566
Thanks! Macroexpanded:
The PS2’s Backwards Compatibility from the Engineer Who Built It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34944067 - Feb 2023 (48 comments)
The PS2’s Backwards Compatibility from the Engineer Who Built It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22501566 - March 2020 (16 comments)
Note to avoid misunderstanding: reposts of cool articles are totally fine after about a year (this is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). Lists of related links are just to satisfy extra-curious readers.
The PS2’s Backwards Compatibility from the Engineer Who Built It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34944067 - Feb 2023 (48 comments)
The PS2’s Backwards Compatibility from the Engineer Who Built It - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22501566 - March 2020 (16 comments)
Note to avoid misunderstanding: reposts of cool articles are totally fine after about a year (this is in the FAQ: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html). Lists of related links are just to satisfy extra-curious readers.
No worries, as the OP I added the old threads simply for my own curiosity.
[deleted]
What I wouldn't give to attend that 90's PlayStation R&D internal intro programming course.
The thought someone went from no programming background, taking a company internal course and then writes a GPU emulation layer in the 90's is just absolutely mad.
Super impressive!
Super impressive!
Right? The golden age of game dev—low-level programming, custom hardware tricks, and figuring out how to squeeze every last drop of performance out of the PlayStation. I’d love to see those internal docs and training materials. Probably a treasure trove of lost optimization techniques!
The golden age is always behind us.
I personally believe that we are in the golden age right now: literally anyone can pickup and make games. Game dev is actually something you can learn on your own and do.
Back in the 90s it was all locked up in licenses, expensive books or a handful of companies.
Now you can open up Unity and make a game in a weekend.
I personally believe that we are in the golden age right now: literally anyone can pickup and make games. Game dev is actually something you can learn on your own and do.
Back in the 90s it was all locked up in licenses, expensive books or a handful of companies.
Now you can open up Unity and make a game in a weekend.
I think Unity is a bad example. WebASM and frameworks built to cooperate with it, such as wasm-4 and raylib are leading the charge in my opinion. As we move forward, not only do we need to stop building our castles in other peoples' kingdoms, but we need to build leaner, smaller, cleaner, and more hackable. Otherwise we'll keep getting stuck, as we have with Java, and Windows XP, and gmail, and...
Sure it's nice to just be able to "import antigravity" as one does with massive, convenient, prebaked infrastructure like Unity, but it's never worth the cost, when the cost always seems to be "everything you've got, and a little more next year".
Sure it's nice to just be able to "import antigravity" as one does with massive, convenient, prebaked infrastructure like Unity, but it's never worth the cost, when the cost always seems to be "everything you've got, and a little more next year".
I think it's a bad example if people strictly focus on their own personal principles, which most people don't really care about.
People who grew up making their first games in BASIC didn't really know or care of the implications of using it, which required DOS. It was the ease of picking it up and make something fun quickly.
Unity might not be perfect but allows anyone to put their first "black rectangle" in seconds, on many various platforms without a thought.
When I started, it was OpenGL/DX C++ madness full of magical incantation which would call graphic APIs just because someone said so and without much support for non-English speakers.
People who grew up making their first games in BASIC didn't really know or care of the implications of using it, which required DOS. It was the ease of picking it up and make something fun quickly.
Unity might not be perfect but allows anyone to put their first "black rectangle" in seconds, on many various platforms without a thought.
When I started, it was OpenGL/DX C++ madness full of magical incantation which would call graphic APIs just because someone said so and without much support for non-English speakers.
We had basic games in magazines we'd type directly into an Apple IIc or IBM PC, which has BASIC in their ROMs. No DOS required.
To me the 8-bit computer era is the golden age.
Most published commercial games were made by a single 14 to 20 year old in few months.
Most published commercial games were made by a single 14 to 20 year old in few months.
> Most published commercial games were made by a single 14 to 20 year old in few months.
This isn't really true. Yes, some games were made hastily like that, like E.T. for Atari.
Just one cherry-picked example, The Legend of Zelda for NES was made in about 2 years with 9 people in the credits.
Some popular modern indie games with similar team sizes and development schedules include:
Valheim, which went from full time development in 2018 to early access release in 2021 with a team of two.
Stardew Valley's initial development (not an early access game) took four years with a single developer.
Rimworld took one year for an alpha build, and about 5 more years to full release with 2-3 developers.
Minecraft/Infiniminer took about 2 years to reach a release version, with Notch handing off development to Jeb and Mojang only growing to a larger development team post-Microsoft acquisition.
This isn't really true. Yes, some games were made hastily like that, like E.T. for Atari.
Just one cherry-picked example, The Legend of Zelda for NES was made in about 2 years with 9 people in the credits.
Some popular modern indie games with similar team sizes and development schedules include:
Valheim, which went from full time development in 2018 to early access release in 2021 with a team of two.
Stardew Valley's initial development (not an early access game) took four years with a single developer.
Rimworld took one year for an alpha build, and about 5 more years to full release with 2-3 developers.
Minecraft/Infiniminer took about 2 years to reach a release version, with Notch handing off development to Jeb and Mojang only growing to a larger development team post-Microsoft acquisition.
I'd say that it is still the same today but the same tools can be used to make AAA games.
The sheer amount of games made by under 20s is definitely higher today than back then, and I'd argue the quality of it too.
The sheer amount of games made by under 20s is definitely higher today than back then, and I'd argue the quality of it too.
The fidelity, definitely. I think quality is a harder sell. I do think we have more gaming history behind us now to draw from and I think we will be entering a new golden age soon but at the moment gaming feels like it's in a rut.
20 years? Feels like not that long ago when I was able to leisurely rock out on the new Guitar Hero with that.
Part of me thinks it is because games haven't really changed in those 20 years.
Time wise we are further away from the PS2 than it was from the Atari 2600.
The move from 2D to 3D was massive. The PS1 and N64 made experimentation (and bad choices) possible. By the time PS2 came around it was all figured out, and we have what we have.
Time wise we are further away from the PS2 than it was from the Atari 2600.
The move from 2D to 3D was massive. The PS1 and N64 made experimentation (and bad choices) possible. By the time PS2 came around it was all figured out, and we have what we have.
I think there’s some rose tinted glasses here. And I say this as someone who loves Final Fantasy X, Devil May Cry, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The PS2 was still figuring out 3D cameras and jank was a real issue. I’d say it took to the PS3 era where the console had enough power to truly render 3D worlds and have a controllable camera that worked well, especially in action games.
Now I’d say the PS2 games themselves were way better than the PS3 era, even with that jank ;-)
Now I’d say the PS2 games themselves were way better than the PS3 era, even with that jank ;-)
I think this is a bit of a myopic view. There’s a world of difference between the Aron games of 2024 and 2002. We didn’t really nail third person camera controls until Xbox 360/ps3 era, and the multiplayer landscape has changed massively - marvel rivals and hell divers 2 being two great examples of the last 12 months. The indie or AA scene is booming again - that certainly wasn’t true in the ps2 era and early days of steam, something like Balatro being a perfect example again. You’re also forgetting g the vast, vast amounts of absolute shovelware and drivel that came out and was tolerated on those platforms too.
I think your view is a bit myopic.
Take Final Fantasy Online, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, and all of EA Sports as evidence. Those games were best selling for a reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_online_g...
Take Final Fantasy Online, Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, and all of EA Sports as evidence. Those games were best selling for a reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_2_online_g...
I’m not saying there weren’t great games, far from it.
The console view it's the miopic one. Mafia, Max Payne, Kane & Lynch... great on PC.
Consoles were very subpar.
Consoles were very subpar.
This article is from 2020. The PS2 came out almost 25 years ago now.
[deleted]
So is that emulation software-base, not hardware-base, or half half? If its half half, consider several games won't work, what's the big difference with real PS1 hardwares in terms of gaming experience？
Originally half-half, then later fully software. I don't know all problematic games but the ones I do know of had some hard coded expectations for the hardware that the emulator didn't fulfill.
Even going from original PS2 to slim PS2 some games (eg. Panelist) stopped working because the specs of the DVD drive changed.
And similarly going from original PS1 to PSone resulted in minor changes in GPU behaviour which caused display quirks in some games.
Even going from original PS2 to slim PS2 some games (eg. Panelist) stopped working because the specs of the DVD drive changed.
And similarly going from original PS1 to PSone resulted in minor changes in GPU behaviour which caused display quirks in some games.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Luckily, I got the chance to learn how to program computers thanks to a training program that the company ran. The material was easy for me to grasp and I came away from that training feeling like I could program just about anything. After I was done with that training, I did a lot of odds and ends.
I worry such entry-level positions and on-the-job training will start to disappear (if they haven't already.)
I worry such entry-level positions and on-the-job training will start to disappear (if they haven't already.)
This upsets me too. I always loved hiring inquisitive, energetic juniors who didn't know shit about software engineering but wanted to learn everything about it. I haven't been allowed to hire a junior in close to a decade.
> hiring inquisitive, energetic juniors who didn't know shit about software engineering but wanted to learn everything about it
the modern management culture has warped the apprenticeship/mentorship model (which is what's being described).
The management do not want to risk investing in someone junior, lest they become senior and move to a different company. So the strategic thing to do is to hire someone already senior, and not pay the cost of the education/training.
the modern management culture has warped the apprenticeship/mentorship model (which is what's being described).
The management do not want to risk investing in someone junior, lest they become senior and move to a different company. So the strategic thing to do is to hire someone already senior, and not pay the cost of the education/training.
This is a problem of their own making: treat your employees well and they won't want to leave. Treat them like cattle you can extract value from and they will.
Yeah, but employees are just resources.. You can always hire new talent.. Until not ;)
> The management do not want to risk investing in someone junior, lest they become senior and move to a different company.
Agreed, but this is a legitimate concern. In fact, it's almost a guarantee in my experience. The vast majority of people, myself included, do not stay at the same company long-term anymore. I mostly blame The company's ridiculous HR policies around salaries and promotions. For this. They have built a system in which if you want a promotion or raise you typically have to leave the company. However, that does not change the reality that most Juniors will not stick around long enough to become seniors.
I don't know what the solution is, but we definitely need one.
Agreed, but this is a legitimate concern. In fact, it's almost a guarantee in my experience. The vast majority of people, myself included, do not stay at the same company long-term anymore. I mostly blame The company's ridiculous HR policies around salaries and promotions. For this. They have built a system in which if you want a promotion or raise you typically have to leave the company. However, that does not change the reality that most Juniors will not stick around long enough to become seniors.
I don't know what the solution is, but we definitely need one.
<< The company's ridiculous HR policies around salaries and promotions
I literally just had a conversation with my boss. You are near top of your band so can't do much in terms of raises. To his credit, he at least offered a path to the next level, but honestly.. that promotion should have happened after last year's crazy project.
<< if you want a promotion or raise you typically have to leave the company
And this is mostly what they got, because people respond to incentives. I know my last move was upwards for 30% raise ( yes, I was clearly fairly underpaid ).
<< However, that does not change the reality that most Juniors will not stick around long enough to become seniors.
My first real job kept me for 10 years. It could happen. Still, the tension between management and rank-and-file is real though.
I literally just had a conversation with my boss. You are near top of your band so can't do much in terms of raises. To his credit, he at least offered a path to the next level, but honestly.. that promotion should have happened after last year's crazy project.
<< if you want a promotion or raise you typically have to leave the company
And this is mostly what they got, because people respond to incentives. I know my last move was upwards for 30% raise ( yes, I was clearly fairly underpaid ).
<< However, that does not change the reality that most Juniors will not stick around long enough to become seniors.
My first real job kept me for 10 years. It could happen. Still, the tension between management and rank-and-file is real though.
What's funny is they'll end up raising the pay anyway. It's not like when you leave they can get someone for the same pay. They're going to have to pay as much to an incoming candidate as the next company will have to pay you. They're literally just banking on you either being too lazy or afraid to leave. So then the only loyal engineers they have are ones who aren't competent enough to leave.
Exactly! I think they realize this too but justify it as a bet. They win the bet often enough that it makes it worth it, and the few times they lose are just accepted as risks of the business. It seems idiotic to me, just as idiotic as thinking of engineers as fungible.
The solution is quit letting accountants and managers determine pay raises and promotions.
Then you might ask what are managers for. To this I have no answer.
Then you might ask what are managers for. To this I have no answer.
bring back the apprenticeship model, and stipulate that there's a cost to leaving the apprenticeship program until the company gets back X number of years of service in exchange for the apprenticeship perhaps.
This is acutally somewhat interesting. I definitely don't want to bring back the indentured servitude model (or indentured servititude lite which I worry would happen), but maybe with some creativity we could come up with something. Maybe a way for other companies to buy out a contract or something?
My guess is there isn't really a way to get this done without some violations of freedom, so it probably isn't going to work, but it would be fun to brainstorm on.
My guess is there isn't really a way to get this done without some violations of freedom, so it probably isn't going to work, but it would be fun to brainstorm on.
The issue then becomes that if the apprenticeship is not teaching you anything then you're stuck and likely underpaid with a bad company for X years.
At least it’s still preserved in academia.
academia has overwhelmingly outputted low quality. corps dont invest because people hand over their taxes to uni’s instead. a bad deal in late stage capitalism.
Untapped resource: Homeschoolers and self-tought people. Of course that entails that you have to be willing to look at more than what school they went to in the résumé and your company is on board with non-accademic hires, but that's partly your job if you want a change.
Never had that experience, and I have seen a lot as I am approaching 50 years old, Software Engineering hiring has always been with an Engineering degree through HR, on my part of the globe.
As a Computer Science student, what should I be focusing on in order to get a job in this market?
IMO: Writing, extending and fixing bugs in nontrivial programs, collaborating with others, reading a lot of documentation of the things you use, discussing programming with other interested people. The scientific part is usually not at the fore in practice and your courses will be plenty for that.
Working on some large FOSS project will teach you most of the skills, though maybe don't specialize too much. Some people seem to mostly fix bugs, others design and half-finish stuff before switching to something else, etc. It's best to know the full lifecycle in order to have relevant experience for all situations.
Working on some large FOSS project will teach you most of the skills, though maybe don't specialize too much. Some people seem to mostly fix bugs, others design and half-finish stuff before switching to something else, etc. It's best to know the full lifecycle in order to have relevant experience for all situations.
Focus on building real projects, contributing to open source, and gaining practical experience. Strong problem-solving skills, knowing system design basics, and some cloud familiarity (AWS/Azure/GCP) help. Networking and referrals matter a lot—try to connect with industry folks on LinkedIn or attend meetups. Most importantly, don’t just grind LeetCode—show you can build and ship things.
Very much agree with this. When I am looking at recently graduated candidates, I look for things they have actually built. When they have Open source projects on GitHub, that is incredible. Just throwing any crap up. There isn't sufficient though. Just throwing your school assignments up. There doesn't count either.
My best advice is start writing code to solve problems in your own life. Basically write apps to solve your own problem. A great example currently on hn is an expense tracker. That sort of stuff is great because you can showcase your front end and back-end skills, along with design and refinement. Then maintain that project for a while to show a history, which demonstrates your skill of maintenance. That sort of thing Will get you hired by me as a junior in a heartbeat.
My best advice is start writing code to solve problems in your own life. Basically write apps to solve your own problem. A great example currently on hn is an expense tracker. That sort of stuff is great because you can showcase your front end and back-end skills, along with design and refinement. Then maintain that project for a while to show a history, which demonstrates your skill of maintenance. That sort of thing Will get you hired by me as a junior in a heartbeat.
Biggest thing I can advise is stay away from AI. Learn what you're doing, learn how code works, is structured, is written and why. The most successful engineers are the ones who learn the "language" of software engineering. They have some sense of how a program is structured even before looking at a line of code.
Actual projects to showcase. Open source/Github helps but is not a strict must.
Edit: paid internships
This. I mentored five interns across two companies (an faang and a pre IPO) all of them are on the great path and in great companies now. They didn’t know much but they had an appetite that you don’t see often in the people with 10+ years of experience.
I think we’re a couple years out max from Peak Developer and a lot of the growth / entry level roles will start getting taken over by the experienced devs who can adapt to coordinating a set of AI agents to do the actual coding and testing and DevOps more efficiently, and it’s all downhill from there. So I don’t see an entry level, mess around directly writing code job, to exist in abundance in say 10 years.
I can see that happening. However, I also believe that college or some form of structured education will step in to bridge the gap. Historically, education has played a role in transitioning people from knowing little to becoming workforce ready. With AI changing the landscape, the gap will undoubtedly be wider, but education systems may evolve to accommodate that shift. By the looks of it, AI could itself fill that gap.
That's the exact problem though. Companies have been outsourcing training to colleges for decades now, further and further reducing available career paths as mentioned and causing degree inflation, higher education costs for everybody, etc.
It's also unlikely to change because it's just one more symptom of how companies are run these days, and that mindset has societal-scale momentum now.
It's also unlikely to change because it's just one more symptom of how companies are run these days, and that mindset has societal-scale momentum now.
Why wouldn’t they? Despite what idealists think that people should go to college to “expand their minds and be better citizens of the world”, most people can’t afford to spend tens of thousands of dollars and not expect to be ready for careers.
I didn't intend to sound crunchy like that. College for practical means has long been the norm in the US vs. elsewhere, going back to agricultural schools in the 18th and 19th centuries. There is nothing wrong with that; what is NOT good is the whole-sale replacement of job training to colleges, as it cannot properly encompass every eccentricity of a particular job, leading to the problems mentioned before.
College is about getting the knowledge to perform your field, not the knowledge of every particular procedure one could possibly expect to see. The modern emphasis on internships softens the blow somewhat, but it's a half-hearted replacement and is easily abused in many fields.
College is about getting the knowledge to perform your field, not the knowledge of every particular procedure one could possibly expect to see. The modern emphasis on internships softens the blow somewhat, but it's a half-hearted replacement and is easily abused in many fields.
I don't see this future coming, companies are made and will be made by people, if such level of productivity will be reached it will only increase the demand for more people doing it. Going from assembly to higher level languages didn't shrink the workforce, actually required more developers. Productivity improvements(given i don't believe it will be that much of an improvement) don't necesseraly map to few people doing it
[deleted]
I thought the same, but then I came across a post asking what happens when all the seniors retire?
What happened to when all the Cobol developers retired? Companies mostly kept trying to hire non-existent seniors at moderately elevated rates and paid consultants until they ran out of money. Very few companies did an about turn and started investing in developer training.
And there's still not a COBOL training pipeline.
Check out Infosys "global education center".
I haven't seen any entry level positions or on the job training at any company I've worked at. I've always been jealous of these training programs that Japanese game companies had, where you'd be working alongside future and contemporary greats.
In the UK this is generally being replaced by schools. Kids start basics of logic early in primary school, and by their teens they are attending lessons in how to build websites with HTML and CSS. In 10 years everybody in the country will have this basic grounding in coding and so workplaces will not need to provide it at all.
If companies don’t invest in juniors because they 'might leave,' they’ll just end up with a team of burned-out seniors who eventually leave anyway.
I wonder if Sony still runs such things...
I think so, it's common for large businesses in Japan to rotate employees through departments at the beginning of their career, and to hire people for engineering with a degree in another field. In the English language FAQ for instance: https://www.sony.com/en/SonyInfo/Careers/japan/en/faq/major....
> Can I still apply even if my major and job course are not related?
> Please do! Around 40% of our new recruits work in positions that are different from their university majors. Instead of narrowing your options by focusing on your major, please expand your thoughts and ideas to what you want to do at Sony. Pick job courses that excite you and motivate you to take on a challenge.
In the Japanese website they mention that 300 engineers act as in-house instructors.
> Can I still apply even if my major and job course are not related?
> Please do! Around 40% of our new recruits work in positions that are different from their university majors. Instead of narrowing your options by focusing on your major, please expand your thoughts and ideas to what you want to do at Sony. Pick job courses that excite you and motivate you to take on a challenge.
In the Japanese website they mention that 300 engineers act as in-house instructors.
[deleted]
The decline of entry-level roles is worrying. Companies are optimizing for immediate productivity but forgetting that juniors grow into seniors. No training, no pipeline, no future talent...
Agreed. Boot camps tried to fill the void. Some were great, some were not, like anything. Most of the boot camp grads I worked with were good juniors with real world experience to bring to the table (designers, writers, etc). But, in general, the disdain boot camps were met with by many engineering orgs spoke volumes for how little value people place on junior engineers. If you won’t train people, and you won’t accept graduates of job training programs, it’s hard to see how you can ever have a sustainable pipeline. Many people would seemingly rather spend billions training AI than training junior engineers. (For the record, I don’t view these two options as exclusive)
I agree that many engineering orgs did not give boot camps proper chance, but I do think it is important to be realistic regarding them. Generally speaking, Someone coming with a computer science degree is going to be a lot more well-rounded with much more breath and depth then someone coming from a boot camp.
It's not really a great comparison though in my experience. Typically, a good boot camp graduate will come away with a better ability to build real apps, but has a serious lacking in understanding algorithms, OS fundamentals, and many other things That important for Back-End development, especially.
I'm not sure what the solution is to the junior engineer crisis, but I don't think the solution is boot camps. Those have a great place, but if anything a junior coming from a boot camp is generally even more Junior than a junior coming from a computer science degree.
My hypothesis is that The computer science degree route is what will be most useful for juniors in the future. In a world where AI can do the basic coding and build the apps, I see the qualities in appreciating overall design and architecture, especially with regards to scalability. There could definitely be boot camps that teach that sort of stuff, but I am not aware of any that exists currently.
It's not really a great comparison though in my experience. Typically, a good boot camp graduate will come away with a better ability to build real apps, but has a serious lacking in understanding algorithms, OS fundamentals, and many other things That important for Back-End development, especially.
I'm not sure what the solution is to the junior engineer crisis, but I don't think the solution is boot camps. Those have a great place, but if anything a junior coming from a boot camp is generally even more Junior than a junior coming from a computer science degree.
My hypothesis is that The computer science degree route is what will be most useful for juniors in the future. In a world where AI can do the basic coding and build the apps, I see the qualities in appreciating overall design and architecture, especially with regards to scalability. There could definitely be boot camps that teach that sort of stuff, but I am not aware of any that exists currently.
Many of the best engineers I have worked with don’t have a computer science or engineering degree. The business we’re in is writing software to support the company. Most of that is stuff they don’t teach in computer science: inter-personal communication, project planning, coordinating, gathering requirements, writing. Learning computer science fundamentals helps but is in no way required to get started. This is a trainable job like any other. Many boot camp grads bring a lot of those skills to the table already.
It just depends on the job at hand. If the engineering is very easy, and most of the work is gathering requirements and coordinating, then it's as you say. This is what Java was invented for, and I've been that person. But it's not the same as being a really good engineer (which I'm not).
You are assuming that you can't learn that stuff on the job. There is nothing in a computer science education that is not available to learn on the job and in reading and experimenting on your own over some years.
By contrast, a not insignificant number of graduates of computer science and engineering programs struggle to excel outside of writing code. That is only a small part of the job.
By contrast, a not insignificant number of graduates of computer science and engineering programs struggle to excel outside of writing code. That is only a small part of the job.
I'm not assuming that, but I'd argue that learning theory on the job is much harder than learning interpersonal on the job, as being on the job biases in both of those directions.
I agree with everything you said, but I do think there is a difference betwee "required" and "optimal." I worked with a guy who went to boot camp after switching career fields and had absolutely no CS background. After starting the job (and excelling), he started reading text books from a CS degree plan. He learned more about CS in a year than many people with 4-year degrees, and he became a formidable dev. However, most people aren't that dedicated/willing to learn.
> Generally speaking, Someone coming with a computer science degree is going to be a lot more well-rounded with much more breath and depth then someone coming from a boot camp.
In my two decades in the industry I've used my computer science education maybe twice.
In my two decades in the industry I've used my computer science education maybe twice.
Interesting, I use stuff I learned from my computer science frequently, especially regarding algorithms, data structures, and OS fundamentals. Granted I'm much more on the backend/infra side, but those things still come up regularly. Just yesterday I faced an issue regarding the way threads operate that a basic understanding of processes and threads in the OS made a lot easier.
It's nothing that a person can't learn outside of a CS degree of course, but most people won't spend the time to dig into the formal and often abstract principles to really understand how different algorithms perform and how choice of data structure impacts performance. I've reviewed code many times that really should be using a linked list or tree but ends up thrown into a hash because that's basically the only data structure the person knows. Not uncommon is a reply "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" which drives me crazy. It doesn't take much effort to just use the right data structure in the first place if you understand their pros and cons.
It's nothing that a person can't learn outside of a CS degree of course, but most people won't spend the time to dig into the formal and often abstract principles to really understand how different algorithms perform and how choice of data structure impacts performance. I've reviewed code many times that really should be using a linked list or tree but ends up thrown into a hash because that's basically the only data structure the person knows. Not uncommon is a reply "Premature optimization is the root of all evil" which drives me crazy. It doesn't take much effort to just use the right data structure in the first place if you understand their pros and cons.
I don't think I'd go around telling people that. My education has been very helpful, and knowledge sticks to knowledge your whole career. To think you learned nothing applicable in a 4-year CS program honestly tells me more about you than industry.
It's almost like... there are many different projects developers work on, and you've somehow "specced" into a sub-profession where your undergraduate degree was helpful (whatcha doin' over there, reinventing hash tables? Haha I joke. But seriously. .... Reinventing heaps, right? ;) )
Don't diminish people for arriving at software from a different "angle", or doing different things. We're in a highly intellectual field, and the implication that doing "pure CS" is somehow a higher or more valid form of software development is just ridiculous.
Don't diminish people for arriving at software from a different "angle", or doing different things. We're in a highly intellectual field, and the implication that doing "pure CS" is somehow a higher or more valid form of software development is just ridiculous.
I'm a web developer. I've never written a hash table, heap or bubble sort. I just use tools provided by the platform. But I've found it helpful to understand the tools that I'm using, and can't really imagine any programmer who wouldn't, unless they've never connected the dots between the theoretical knowledge they obtained and the tools they use every day to do their job.
Well, I think you're taking the other poster too literally. They probably mean "I've used the knowledge I gained in my computer science degree, MINUS the knowledge the average developer who doesn't have a CS degree, maybe twice".
[deleted]
As it has always been, at least since I am on the job market, early 1990's.
In the little Iberian Penisula, you would seldom get a training, and being hired as junior without experience in what folks were already doing, was through connections as it usually happens in more "flexible" cultures.
And better have a degree on thee field, either technical school, or higher education.
Trainings? That is for us to do at home instead of watching TV, lets not diminish company profits, someone has to keep their audis, volvos and bmws for management roles.
It is not only due salaries that so many emigrate.
In the little Iberian Penisula, you would seldom get a training, and being hired as junior without experience in what folks were already doing, was through connections as it usually happens in more "flexible" cultures.
And better have a degree on thee field, either technical school, or higher education.
Trainings? That is for us to do at home instead of watching TV, lets not diminish company profits, someone has to keep their audis, volvos and bmws for management roles.
It is not only due salaries that so many emigrate.
<< Trainings? That is for us to do at home instead of watching TV, lets not diminish company profits, someone has to keep their audis, volvos and bmws for management roles.
The 2nd hand expression of this I heard was along the lines of: you should already have a portfolio of projects to show, github with stars and/or significant FOSS contributions.
I read the article and it made me realize how far we moved from that model. Apart from everything else, my own company's training is generic training intended to check the box..
The 2nd hand expression of this I heard was along the lines of: you should already have a portfolio of projects to show, github with stars and/or significant FOSS contributions.
I read the article and it made me realize how far we moved from that model. Apart from everything else, my own company's training is generic training intended to check the box..
as an employer, it's not about us being unwilling to hire juniors. it's that juniors these days demand too much salary for their position. especially for a small startup like ours, we can't afford to match FAANG company salaries. if juniors want a chance, they should be ready to accept low salaries.
Every senior developer is still a junior developer depending on the domain at hand. If you want a lateral move into another job, imho it is ok to take a pay cut and become a junior again, e.g. webdev into C++ games. I don't see why people are scared of temporarily taking pay cuts but it has always been the nature of being a dev.
I'll work for minimum wage if you're going to offer me the kind of training described in this article
[deleted]
userbinator(3)
Inside the Genesis they had the hardware for the Master System, which included the original Z80, the original sound chip. The Genesis graphics chip was evolved from the Master System and could work in Master System mode. You needed a cartridge adapater.
The other surprising thing is that you could actually run the Z80 in parallel with your 68000 when running a Genesis game. We used the Z80 as a sound co-processor running MIDI and playing sampled drums without bothering the 68000.
On the PS2 system's PS1 backwards compatibility this pattern is quite similar, not mentioned in the blog posts is that the IOP which acts as the PS2's sound co-processor contains an R3000 like the PS1 and it's underclocked to directly run the PS1 titles.
Apparently on later editions of the PS2 Slim they removed the R3000 based IOP and replaced it with a PowerPC microcontroller! It had to fully emulate the R3000 and the SPU as far as I know to fufill the IOP duties including the PS1 emulation.