RoBa's blogProgramming, algorithm, and daily lifeRe: Is ACM really useful?

I have been too reluctant to write articles recently. I have posted a long article that I replied to in shuimu today. It also aims to show that the previous article "ACM cannot afford to hurt" is purely a joke, actually, I have a lot of love for ACM and ACMer ~
========================================================== = As an ACM developer who has been engaged in ACM for many years but has no achievements, I am a newbie who has just joined the company for a few months. At the end of the article, I found that some places were a little excited, but I was too lazy to change it. Welcome to take a picture downstairs.
1. the ACM competition is not about research, but the students who have worked on ACM are at least no more away from scientific research than those who do not do ACM. I dare to say that, in terms of statistics, ACMer prefers research. As a matter of fact, ACMer has always taken a serious and serious attitude towards computer science. In ACMer's discussion, formal language, Computability, compilation principle, optimization, probability, statistics, and so on are often displayed, most computer students generally only equate computer science with programming. I began to give a heartfelt reverence and admiration for computer science and mathematics after I took the advantage of algorithms in the competition. On the other hand, what are the so-called research methods and ideas (especially in Chinese schools? If you don't know how to make money, the University Journal cannot even get some basic concepts. Ask the largest stream to add the simplest ford fulkerson with heuristic ideas, it does not prove that we can claim the complexity of O (VE). What other research methods are there for the convergence and divergence of harmonic series?
2. There are indeed a lot of things in ACM that can be counted as "odd tricks and tricks", but these "strange tricks and tricks" are exactly the content of the research papers published several years ago. In fact, in order to solve some ACM problems, we often go to the previous papers. The ACM questions only put the content in the paper in a context with a realistic background. Use a clever data structure to reduce the number of operations in a step from O (n) to O (logn). If this solution has not been published before, isn't such a strange skill a perfect topic? Is it only a big problem like NP = P that deserves research?
3. Because the previous posts on the version discussed that the company should not pay attention to ACM or anything, I will talk about it from the perspective of recruiting people from the company. In my opinion, ACMer has many advantages: (1) being smart and knowing that there are many people smarter than you. In a big bid, this competition still requires a bit of IQ. With my observation, the participants in this competition were somewhat conceited at the beginning, however, after being abused by various great gods for a few times, we will know that there are days out of the sky. (2) be interested in computers and be persistent. In general, participating in the ACM competition is less utilitarian (of course, as ACM competitions are becoming more and more popular in China, it is undeniable that the competition is becoming more utilitarian). To get a decent result, if it is not out of true interest, it cannot be persisted. If you are not playing the game, you may also do a few questions on the OnlineJudge at ordinary times. You may feel that it is no big deal, but not everyone can persevere for several years and do thousands of questions, write tens of thousands of lines of code. You may disagree with the tactics of the question sea. In fact, I don't quite agree with them, but those who have such perseverance must have merits. (3) solid basic skills. Programming languages, algorithms, data structures, and other such courses do not have to be said. probability, discretization, and composite mathematics are all things that ACMer practices around the clock. Because of its emphasis on program efficiency, ACMer often has a deeper understanding of the assembly language, operating system, architecture, and other knowledge. You can criticize ACMer for not writing Engineering Code, variable names, bad code style, and exceptions, but it is because they did not pay attention to these issues. From the company's perspective, it is easier to train code standards for new users than to train new users with a set of basic knowledge such as algorithm data structures? Speaking of this, I think many people have a misunderstanding. To clarify this, ACMer will answer ACM questions. It does not mean that people will only answer ACM questions. If an ACMer can deal with so many complicated and tangled algorithms, will it be difficult for him to learn engineering?
The above are the most important reasons why I guess the company is focusing on the ACM competition. In contrast, it is not particularly important for you to understand an algorithm. The company doesn't recruit you because you just know some algorithms, but because you know these algorithms, it means you are more likely to be a good talent.