Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Wasn't it enough to completely miss my point, you also had to put that annoying "you" all over the place. Sigh.


what was your point then, if not that programmers won't need to know concurrency because it will be in black boxes that they haven't written? (Bear with me, I'm a bit dense at the moment. I haven't had much sleep the last while)

I still think that programmers that are actually doing more than simply gluing together premade libraries will need to be familiar with concurrency, and that anyone taking a theoretical computer science degree to graduate and glue together libraries is probably overqualified.


>what was your point then, if not that programmers...

No, not "programmers", but "some programmers" or "a lot of programmers". Of course there we'll be always people that has to do the hard part of whatever, but it is a minority now and I'm afraid it will still be a minority in the future.

Don't think that everybody is as snart as you or your buddies. No sarcasm, I really believe that you get it better than my points ;-) In my experience the concurrency is written always by the same person (guess who), in the best case, that it.

That doesn't mean that I think it shouldn't be taught. Only that I'm skeptical it will solve anything.


I don't know if english is not your first language, but "you" in the context you are complaining about here does not mean YOU it means "ANYONE".


It's still wrong. The point wasn't about individual perspective, but about what proportion of programmers' population does the hard work.


It's a less archaic way of saying "one". 'when one does X' vs 'when you do x'




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: