I’ve been doing some reflecting since my previous post, Creativity in Engineering. Creative or not, an algorithm is garbage if it does not work. After making an appointment with my professor to fully understand why I lost so many points on that homework question that I tried to answer with concepts not yet introduced in lecture, I started wondering why an introductory class might walk beginning students through solutions that are proven to be correct. Classic to the discipline are classics for a reason. Seems I need to dial my impulses back a little and focus more on the needed rigor. Maybe the best way to broaden creativity is to start with the rules. Thanks, professor.
I’m thankful for my professor’s patience. Rather than dismiss my strange questions, he will logically help me understand where my reasoning does not work effectively. My interest is there. I’m willing to work hard, too. Learning the effective methods and honing in on the required skills takes time. It’s a bit laborous, frankly. But I am interested. That’s what keeps me pushing for the correct results.
All I really know at this point is that I like the challenge, even if I don’t feel like a natural when it comes to understanding how to solve a programming problem. Maybe I’m better suited as a ‘people person’ who can connect with others. I naturally see a broader picture beyond a module to a big coding project. Something within me wants to challenge the ‘norms’ of computer science to say that someone who finds people fascinating and likes being social can write good code. I get that it’s hard. I can’t code for twenty four hours straight because I need to go out to hug a human. But why do computer scientists have to fit a stereotype that I don’t believe to be true?
I’m going to go back and fix that solution to my homework. Time to rework my thinking. Keep on coding.