>>12837655>>12837697>Would a software devolper even do that shit? ...yes? There are software *engineer* listings for JPL, amazon cryptography, nvidia firmware and embedded, etc. all that list CS (a good program, not a monkey one) as a valid major, have a more than decent amount of CS majors on their payroll, etc.. Parts of these fields intersect with theory, especially cryptography, but the crypto theory team and the crypto engineering team are both part of the general cryptoSYSTEMS team. Their relationship isn't "durr it's the smart math guys who tell the software dev monkeys what to do." If you know anything about provable security, you know that secure implementation of a system that is secure in theory is highly nontrivial and not guaranteed by theorems alone. The theory people have to keep this in mind when doing theory and the systems people have to understand a decent amount of the theory to have it done correctly
>but muh don't implement another SHAthere's more important crypto implementation than the core starting library that nobody touches anymore.
The story is very similar in other fields. You can read about stuff like how priority inversion was solved by the software team at JPL by reading a systems CS paper on how to deal with it. Only /sci/ focuses on the part of software dev that has nothing to do with science and engineering, ie frontend and business bullshit.
Everyone talks about a "theory person" figuring it all out but this is a massive dunning kruger from people whose only experience using software has been to do something incredibly low scale and trivial. Why would you throw 6 fig starting at entry level and an incredibly taxing interview process at something that's ostensibly able to be done by the "theory guys" you might already have on your payroll?
