---
esco_uri: http://data.europa.eu/esco/skill/21d2f96d-35f7-4e3f-9745-c533d2dd6e97
esco_label: "computer programming"
relation: essential
onet_soc: 15-1252.00
source: stackexchange
confidence: high
qa_count: 5
generator: gemma3:27b (prompt-designed and spot-checked by Claude)
generated: 2026-07-10
---

# computer programming — Software Engineer

For a Software Engineer, 'computer programming' isn’t just *writing* code; it's about crafting reliable, performant solutions within complex systems. Daily tasks involve translating requirements into functional modules – often using languages like Python, Java, C++, or JavaScript – but crucially also include understanding *why* certain approaches are better than others. This means knowing algorithmic complexity (big O notation isn’t just academic!), data structures, and design patterns to build scalable applications. You'll spend a lot of time debugging, refactoring existing code, and writing unit/integration tests; the ability to quickly diagnose issues through code reading is paramount.

## Praxiswissen (Stack Exchange, CC-BY-SA 4.0)

**The asker questions why compound assignment operators like `x += y` are favored in programming languages despite potentially reducing readability. They wonder if there's a benefit beyond simple keystroke savings.**

These operators aren’t just syntactic sugar; they originated from the need for efficient machine code instructions. Historically, using `+=` (and similar) allowed compilers to generate more direct and faster operations on processor registers and memory locations compared to separate load, calculate, and store steps. While modern compilers can often optimize equivalent expressions, understanding this historical context reveals that these operators represent a different *approach* to computation – operating directly on values rather than evaluating complex expressions.

*Source: [Why are shortcuts like x += y considered good practice?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/134118) — answer by Emilio Garavaglia, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker was advised that object creation in Java is extremely expensive and should be minimized, leading them to question whether this contradicts good object-oriented programming practices.**

Outdated advice about Java performance can be significantly misleading. Modern JVMs handle object creation very efficiently – often faster than C++ – and focusing on minimizing objects is a false optimization. Instead of worrying about object counts, prioritize configuring the JVM's memory allocation (`-Xms`) to suit your application’s needs; the goal isn't free memory, but sustained performance.

*Source: [Should we avoid object creation in Java?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/149563) — answer by Slamice, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker questions why detailed comments explaining complex code are often discouraged, arguing that natural language is easier for humans to understand than programming languages and can speed up comprehension.**

While commenting isn't inherently bad, relying on extensive explanations suggests underlying issues with the code’s clarity. Prioritizing simple, understandable code over lengthy comments is crucial because comments become outdated and don't aid in testing or maintainability. A skilled programmer focuses on writing clear solutions rather than justifying complex implementations with detailed documentation.

*Source: [What's wrong with comments that explain complex code?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/254978) — answer by Tulains Córdova, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The questioner inquired about the programming languages utilized by the Soviet Union's space program, specifically focusing on early autonomous rover missions and later projects like Buran.**

Early Soviet space endeavors heavily favored analog hardware over digital computing for critical tasks, delaying widespread adoption of software-based control. While initial onboard computers like Argon-11S used languages such as PL-1 and Fortran due to compatibility with existing economic systems, the Buran program saw development of specialized Russian-based languages (PROL2, Dipol, Laks) designed for accessibility by engineers beyond dedicated programmers. This ultimately led to Drakon, a graphical language intended to further broaden participation in space software development.

*Source: [What software programming languages were used by the Soviet Union's space progra](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/145669) — answer by Maksee, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

**The asker is weighing the pros and cons of using separate Git repositories for each module within a larger, modularized project versus combining all modules into a single repository, specifically considering the need to independently release components.**

While independent component releases are possible with multiple repositories, fracturing a codebase introduces significant overhead that often outweighs the benefits. Maintaining a unified history simplifies debugging and feature tracking, while reducing cognitive load for developers—especially those new to Git or the project. Prioritize ease of understanding and maintainability over strict separation unless components truly represent entirely independent projects.

*Source: [Choosing between Single or multiple projects in a git repository?](https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/q/161293) — answer by Christopher, CC-BY-SA 4.0*

## Weitere Anreicherung

Stage-2 source for future practitioner grounding: arXiv cs.SE (software-engineering preprints).
