hardware versus software
I had this question after viewing basic hardware to learn oop advanced design patterns.
This is a related question where I want to know if software requires hardware knowledge to learn.
Or should I spend more time starting with software
add more zones
This is a related question where I want to know if software requires hardware knowledge to learn.
Or should I spend more time starting with software
add more zones
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
My interpretation is this is a web development question based on topics of php and java.
If you are writing software using those tools, you do need to understand what your app is doing and expected usage or load. That will dictate the amount of memory, processor and disk space you require. The other missing piece is hosting service and capabilities.
If you are writing software using those tools, you do need to understand what your app is doing and expected usage or load. That will dictate the amount of memory, processor and disk space you require. The other missing piece is hosting service and capabilities.
Scott, I think we have the same conclusion, but I do not understand your reference in the prior comment "or you had minimum hardware"
> "or you had minimum hardware"
Tongue and cheek referencing there was very minimal hardware on Apollo 11 guidance computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
Tongue and cheek referencing there was very minimal hardware on Apollo 11 guidance computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
It's probably for the OP to clarify what they mean by "hardware knowledge" but for me - RAM and CPU usage is not "hardware knowledge". That's still very much at the software level of understanding, treating the hardware as a black box without needing to really understand it.
To go back to my analogy of a car - you can still understand what speed and mileage you get with your car, without understanding how the car actually functions - how gas is turned into forward propulsion.
For me, hardware knowledge means actually understanding how hardware works - which means how a CPU functions, which operations are executed sequentially and which in parallel on a modern processor - what the difference between an L1 cache and an L2 cache is and what the memory model is at the processor level and how it effects multicore processing. That sort of thing.
To me, that knowledge is potentially beneficial, but entirely optional.
You can be a completely successful software developer without ever delving into that level of understanding.
However, if "hardware knowledge" is taken to mean understanding how much RAM your process is consuming, then sure, that level is definitely something you need to know :)
Doug
To go back to my analogy of a car - you can still understand what speed and mileage you get with your car, without understanding how the car actually functions - how gas is turned into forward propulsion.
For me, hardware knowledge means actually understanding how hardware works - which means how a CPU functions, which operations are executed sequentially and which in parallel on a modern processor - what the difference between an L1 cache and an L2 cache is and what the memory model is at the processor level and how it effects multicore processing. That sort of thing.
To me, that knowledge is potentially beneficial, but entirely optional.
You can be a completely successful software developer without ever delving into that level of understanding.
However, if "hardware knowledge" is taken to mean understanding how much RAM your process is consuming, then sure, that level is definitely something you need to know :)
Doug
Scott, could not figure out where you were going with the prior Apollo link. Side track .......
Doug, One who needs only to get from point A to point B need only the knowledge to open door, enter car, make car go.
One need not know whether engine is steam, gas, diesel, electrical, manual (ped-propelled) etc. but the distance it could travel until another action needs to be taken.
But I get the point, each approached this question based on their own interpretation of the Asker.
Doug, One who needs only to get from point A to point B need only the knowledge to open door, enter car, make car go.
One need not know whether engine is steam, gas, diesel, electrical, manual (ped-propelled) etc. but the distance it could travel until another action needs to be taken.
But I get the point, each approached this question based on their own interpretation of the Asker.
It depends...
There wasn't much choice when I started. First training was with sorters, then reproducers, interpreters, etc., including hard-wiring logic boards for them. Next was machine language on an IBM 1401 (w/8K main memory plus 4K expansion box; and yes, those are "K" values). Then on to Autocoder (a kind of assembler), and into IOCS/DIOCS macros because the system had a 2.5MB external disk enclosure. (Watched IBM upgrade the drive to 5MB by essentially removing a stop-screw to allow the disk arm to move across the full surface area.)
From there, training went to COBOL, Fortran, RPG, PL/1, systems analysis, and more... in a two year program a number of decades ago. And I've gone on to more languages/technologies than I can recall nowadays. A year or so after the training, I went back and took a year of basic electronics.
Possibly all of it could have been done with no hardware familiarity at all. I certainly have known many software developers who really know little beyond basic reading of hardware specs. However it seems to me there's a different "feel" to them.
As training went level to level, building on the last, things became more and more abstract. Yet I could use previous learned pieces to make almost immediate sense of things being presented. E.g., memory addresses were seen clearly as physical locations on a logic board. Incrementing a register, using result as an offset to get to a new address, viewing the new address as an element in an array, immediately grasping pointers and pointer manipulation, all of it just followed naturally from seeing how changing wires on a board affected results.
Is hardware knowledge needed? For the vast majority, no. Can it provide a foundation that can make everything in learning software development easier for years to come? Almost certainly yes.
There wasn't much choice when I started. First training was with sorters, then reproducers, interpreters, etc., including hard-wiring logic boards for them. Next was machine language on an IBM 1401 (w/8K main memory plus 4K expansion box; and yes, those are "K" values). Then on to Autocoder (a kind of assembler), and into IOCS/DIOCS macros because the system had a 2.5MB external disk enclosure. (Watched IBM upgrade the drive to 5MB by essentially removing a stop-screw to allow the disk arm to move across the full surface area.)
From there, training went to COBOL, Fortran, RPG, PL/1, systems analysis, and more... in a two year program a number of decades ago. And I've gone on to more languages/technologies than I can recall nowadays. A year or so after the training, I went back and took a year of basic electronics.
Possibly all of it could have been done with no hardware familiarity at all. I certainly have known many software developers who really know little beyond basic reading of hardware specs. However it seems to me there's a different "feel" to them.
As training went level to level, building on the last, things became more and more abstract. Yet I could use previous learned pieces to make almost immediate sense of things being presented. E.g., memory addresses were seen clearly as physical locations on a logic board. Incrementing a register, using result as an offset to get to a new address, viewing the new address as an element in an array, immediately grasping pointers and pointer manipulation, all of it just followed naturally from seeing how changing wires on a board affected results.
Is hardware knowledge needed? For the vast majority, no. Can it provide a foundation that can make everything in learning software development easier for years to come? Almost certainly yes.
I.e. person has a system with top of the Line Processor, 128Gb of ram, 4G GDDR GPU, etc. So they code with ...
versus a person having to develop the same software to operate at a minimum hardware requirement of a dual core Core duo 1.9GHz, 2GB of RAM, Windows 7 and newer........ ...