> you thought SAP didn't require advanced data structures and algorithms for their logistics systems? You thought IBM didn't need algorithms and maths
You've read a lot into my words that I didn't say, and you're responding awfully callously to lamentation. I am an engineer. I enjoy advancing my craft. I wish I could have stayed curious, instead of burning out running against business management boundaries.
I would certain never say "IBM didn't need algorithms," and it's disingenuous of you to accuse me of such strawman arguments. All I am saying is that there's a lamentably low threshold beyond which we've too few opportunities to implement sophisticated or novel technology.
My God, what does it benefit you to accuse me of eschewing all of "maths"? Absurd.
My apologies. I just wanted to give examples that those data structures will be useful for ordinary engineers like me. By "you" I meant anyone not you specifically. Certainly didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I guess this is really bad writing, for which I'm sorry.
You've read a lot into my words that I didn't say, and you're responding awfully callously to lamentation. I am an engineer. I enjoy advancing my craft. I wish I could have stayed curious, instead of burning out running against business management boundaries.
I would certain never say "IBM didn't need algorithms," and it's disingenuous of you to accuse me of such strawman arguments. All I am saying is that there's a lamentably low threshold beyond which we've too few opportunities to implement sophisticated or novel technology.
My God, what does it benefit you to accuse me of eschewing all of "maths"? Absurd.