Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Computer Science from the Bottom Up

bottomupcs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–104 of 104 posts

Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up

#101

Post by mattwillmart »

pugio wrote: post #91
mattwillmart wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know a book like this? Sounds interesting to me as someone who is very interested in computing, but never went to university. Specifically "mathematically explaining what it means to compute, and building up to the abstraction of a Turing machine" Thanks

Take a look at: Understanding Computation: From Simple Machines to Impossible Programs by Tom Stuart. It's pretty much "computation theory for the everyday programmer". It uses Ruby to implement things like Turing Machines and the lambda calculus. Extremely accessible, and a lot of fun.

Thank you

Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up

#102

Post by R0b0t1 »

pjc50 wrote: post #96
R0b0t1 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not enough of an explanation as these things are still possible with CreateProcess. I do remember reading the real explanation -- it was easier to implement fork. That's it.

Running code in the target process space before the target executable is loaded is not possible with CreateProcess. Configuration of the target process has to be done by the operating system, via an ever-growing list of attributes you can pack into STARTUPINFOEX. https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processth... UNIX fork/exec is also significantly faster than CreateProcess, but I'm not sure how much of…

I know, but running code in the target's process space isn't necessarily required nor does the API need to take on an amazing slew of options. That the NT API did is merely indicative of its growth, not an indication that fork is the one true way.

Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up

#103

Post by zerkten »

nicklecompte wrote: post #99
zerkten wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This seems highly focused on systems; I wouldn't call it representative of "Computer Science" as a whole. I'd agree with this, but it fits with how a certain set of schools teaches their core. They will teach a set of related classes around the topics here: computer architecture, operating systems, and networking, because this is often central to their research interests. Others will scatter this information across…

I was a math major (in the US) so I don’t recall exactly, but I think my university offered both BA and BS degrees in computer science, where the BA focused more algorithms and complexity (overlap with math majors) while the BS focused on operating systems and hardware (overlap with electrical engineering majors). For postgraduates there is an academic MS in computer science versus a more practical MEng in software/c…

I think it's good to offer more options, but the focus on BA/BS in the US is weird. In the UK, it was common circa-2000 for:

1. BSc, BEng, MSc monikers to be meaningless across universities, but to be used consistently at the establishment.

2. Multiple degree paths to be available that went from something advertised as computer science to computer engineering.

3. A straightforward path directly into master's level computer science education.

You couldn't make an assessment based on BS vs BA because the curriculum may be similar in both cases. Oxford used BA whereas Durham used BS with both producing solid graduates that can't be differentiated in most work (further research or industry.)

My experience in the US is that hiring has kind of perverted the nature of discussions like these. The focus is on a few select algorithms and maths courses whereas the folks who've done the systems work are arguably better prepared for many real world tech roles. The last half of your degree has to be more interesting and reflective of the individual, right?

Re: Computer Science from the Bottom Up

#104

Post by nicklecompte »

zerkten wrote: post #103
nicklecompte wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a math major (in the US) so I don’t recall exactly, but I think my university offered both BA and BS degrees in computer science, where the BA focused more algorithms and complexity (overlap with math majors) while the BS focused on operating systems and hardware (overlap with electrical engineering majors). For postgraduates there is an academic MS in computer science versus a more practical MEng in software/c…

I think it's good to offer more options, but the focus on BA/BS in the US is weird. In the UK, it was common circa-2000 for: 1. BSc, BEng, MSc monikers to be meaningless across universities, but to be used consistently at the establishment. 2. Multiple degree paths to be available that went from something advertised as computer science to computer engineering. 3. A straightforward path directly into master's level co…

So my experience in the US for employment is that nobody notices or cares if you have a BA or BS, except possibly in unusual cases (my school actually offered a “Bachelor of Science in Theater”). So I don’t think there’s much of a “focus” in the US. There’s a loose set of conventions which aren’t nearly as important as the actual major, and are mostly reflective of internal structures and programs at the university.

MA versus MS is different (I think similar to the difference between a M.Phil versus an M.Sc). But I’ve never seen anyone dwell much on BA/BS.

Post reply on HN