TopCoder, Math, and Game Programming 287
reiners writes "DevX.com has an interesting interview with David Arthur (dgarthur), the 2003 TopCoder Collegiate Challenge winner. Arthur discusses many interesting topics: the similarities between TopCoder problems and math problems, why TopCoder performance is positively correlated with 'real-life' programming performance, and why game programming is where the action is."
Real World vs. Top Coder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those 3 don't happen as much in the real world as one would hope to think. Very few companies do code reviews correctly, nor do most programmers spend enough time testing their algorithms.
I would look at a Top Coder victor the same way I would look at someone who can answer trivia questions correctly. The experience is incredibly valuable, but I wouldn't say that they are parallel at all. Most of the questions and tests are biased against people who have experience doing competitions. A veteran programmer would probably perform 10x better in a real world environment, and is much more valuable than a TopCoder winner who is still in school... but I could be wrong.
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
Just my $.02
Game programming is definitely where it's at (Score:4, Insightful)
But the fighter pilot is one of an elite few, is much more well-trained and on the cutting edge of technology, and sure has that sex appeal and WOW factor as well.
So it is with game programming. Gamers always strive to push the cutting edge, not just get a job done but to try new things always with each iteration, unlike the business programmer who solves a task to be solved rather than invents new problems just to see what's possible, and it's really no coincidence that the needs of games is what drives a lot of PC hardware technology forward. While game programmers may not make as much money or benefit society as the suits, it's sure fun, and I have no regrets about being in the field.
Re:Game programming is definitely where it's at (Score:5, Insightful)
Just show them your cool real time renderings, and they go wow! Your average Joe Blow will not appreciate your proof that P=NP, your RDBMS that sets new records in a TPC benchmark, or your preemptive, reentrant OS kernel. But people like and understand visual things, and so it's easy for them to appreciate the fruits of your labor.
Re:Language of Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
competition paradigm (Score:5, Insightful)
in case people will probably not bother to click, it goes something like this:
you have three days to do the programming task (72 hours), and you submit it via email. you can use whatever language you want, etc etc. here is an official quote:
the cool thing is thisanyway... the money isn't as good, but I like it much better. btw the winner for the 2001 one used haskell, and second place used Dylan, ha! eat my (shorts), Arthur. =)Re:Kid Programmer (Score:2, Insightful)
I had a competitor comment to me once that while lots of others don't mess with objects, he does, just because he likes the structure and makes his debugging easier, even for tournaments . . . most others skip them because it's a level of conceptualization that can be skipped . . . modular code doesn't serve much benefit in 75 minutes . . . (well, unless you're referring to STL . . . )
Re:Kid Programmer (Score:3, Insightful)
And really, should the university be responsible for teaching you that stuff? In my experience, the best way to become a better programmer is to program and have other (more experience) people examine your code and give you feedback, and to look and learn from other people's code. If you're smart, you learn very quickly how to program for "the real world" when put in a job environment.
Re:nobody talks about the actual problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
"For every pair" => O(n^2)
"intersect neighborhoods" => O(n log n)
(by sorting the entries in the neighborhoods and comparing from there)
But as for checking connectedness of pairs in the two intersections, that's again O(n^2).
So we're back at O(n^4) (not to mention the work that goes into preventing double-counting of cycles that are found in several different ways).
Which solution would you rather code up?
Re:good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
I did a 'sort of' competition thing (it was actually a study in how programmers program), and I found that the problem was nothing like what I meet in the real world:
In general, I suspect these competitions reflect academic computing, producing nice and small programs. The real world is more like Google's pagerank software, a simple idea, but complicated by all sorts of issues like Bloggs and Googlebombers.
Re:Language of Choice (Score:3, Insightful)
Clever programmers use Lisp, Scheme and Haskell.
Smart programmers use whatever language the market's hiring, and don't get caught up on language wars.
Re:good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
change halfway through the task
Wow you're being generous. My favorite is when it changes hourly.
Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be surprised if you knew how many educated and real world programmers love programming.
Re:Language of Choice (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Language of Choice (Score:1, Insightful)
He's still pretty young and probably hasn't worked seriously in more than a couple of languages yet. Couple that with the obvious fact that he's a bright guy and it's reasonable to assume that he probably doesn't have any religious views about programming languages yet. Give him a few years and he'll probably have an opinion on the subject.
Fascinating reading (Score:5, Insightful)
"I find it interesting that a math double-major, who's considering becoming a math professor, uses C++"
I don't see much use for computer programming at all in mathematics, except in applied areas that don't interest me. I learned C++ because it was ideal for game programming, and I learned Java because it was taught in college and used at the company where I worked.
"Maybe there is some kind of speed math problem think tank that secretly controls the world around us"
Amazingly enough, it is actually possible for certain people to do more than one thing, including math research and contests. For example, I once met this guy who could walk and talk at - get this - the same time. It was pretty crazy.
"With looks like those... it's no surprise he has nothing better to do."
Yeah, screw you too. At least I have better things to do than flame college students on SlashDot. In fact, I spend no more than two hours a week on TopCoder, often less. I almost never practice, and I have not competed very many times.
"someone who won top coder is saying it's a good indication of real world ability"
I believe I said that it is not completely irrelevant. That would be different. Since I did this interview for some internet thing that neither I nor my friends read, and since I am not even looking for a job right now, I didn't really have a vested interest.
"(tenured math professor = job security)"
"he's smart enough to know even he can't get a job programming"
If you guys think it is easier to get and maintain a good programming job than it is to get and maintain a math professorship at, say, Harvard, you are very much mistaken.
"So this guy is telling us he makes this for the money and he will become a math professor?"
I believe I mentioned that money is no longer my primary reason for doing TopCoder. Furthermore, just because I choose to spend minimal time making lots of money given the opportunity, does not mean I can't live with a bad-paying job.
"normally you do not *decide* to become a professor"
Really? I actually think this is precisely what happens.
"other serious, more difficult, competitions like the ACM"
You don't know what you're talking about. Everybody in the TopCoder top 10 has done extremely well on some or all of the ACM, the IOI, the Putnam, and the IMO. Of these contests, I'd say the ACM is actually the most worthless (straightforward problems, missing constraints, ridiculous 3-person 1-computer dynamic, ridiculous 2-year limit).
"Mr. TopCoder could very easily be a pro athlete. He sure answers questions like one."
What do you want me to say? Maybe I should have answered questions like "Have you thought about how you want to apply your computer skills after graduation?" with "Actually, since I'm a super-genius, I thought I would show P != NP, and then maybe move on to the Riemann hypothesis, and then maybe I'd see if I could fly just by thinking really hard, like that dude in the Matrix". Certain questions will get lame answers every time.
To those of you who aren't asses, good day.
-- David Arthur
Re:Language of Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
In theory, C++ would be the worst of the three in a timed contest--too much housekeeping.
Absolute nonsense.
If you know C++ well, and use the language effectively, there is very, very little housekeeping. My C++ code probably has less housekeeping code than typical Java code, because destructors are an immensely useful tool. Toss in auto_ptr, a couple of other smart pointer types and a few design guidelines and C++ is very good at allowing you to focus on the problem, not the tool.
Plus, I never have to remember to call "close()".
Java has an edge not in the area of housekeeping (and, as you mentioned, Java is unpleasantly verbose, particularly with respect to all of the casting that is often required) but in the area of libraries. This gap isn't as large as some might think, though, because (a) many of the Java libs are rather poorly designed and make you work much harder than you should have to and (b) there are some decent libraries around for C++.
Re:Fascinating reading (Score:1, Insightful)
As a fellow Duke student, I can tell you from personal experience that I don't think anyone has seen David without a smile for the past three years, so you guys REALLY have done an amazing job to piss him off. Congratulations, losers.
But it's okay--I'm sure dgarthur will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Re:David Arthur (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Language of Choice (Score:2, Insightful)
If you read my post, I endorse C as a teaching language (although my more mathematically-inclined colleagues would doubtless prefer Lisp or Haskell). C++ doesn't model anything except itself, though. I've done a fair bit of development with it, and like Java, I mostly find it useful for the libraries. It's full of random gotchas, and doesn't possess the almost one-to-one mapping to machine instructions which C does.
Unless you do a lot of embedded or systems programming, you may as well think of the computer as a virtual machine. It certainly is one to a user process. Most software spends all its time waiting for the user, so "slow" languages are fine.
"C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog" -- Steve Taylor, 1998
"I *made up* the term 'object-oriented,' and I can tell you I did *not* have C++ in mind." -- Alan Kay, one of the inventors/designers of Smalltalk
Re:Real World vs. Top Coder... (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, there is a HUGE amount of grunt coding in game programming. Coding the GUI, writing a script parser, or processing keyboard clicks ain't challenging. But you only need just so many programmers on a given project to write the graphics engine or the AI or do other "challenging" work. (well, of course the AI will absorb as many programmers as you want to throw at it, but for a game that will actually ship...).
Having been a game programmer for five years, I have to say that Slashdotters seem to have some very strange ideas about game programming...