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

Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

codemanship.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 205 posts

Re: Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

#21

Post by RegEx »

alecbenzer wrote: post #15
rlpb wrote: post #12

"Of all the mathematical sciences, computer science is unquestionably the dullest." Really? I find it the most interesting. Which is, I think, what led me here.

Sigh. I keeping seeing all these cs vs programming articles. I'm really waiting for a "fuck just programming, cs is fucking awesome" one, because all the ones I've read so far sound like "haha, stupid math nerds and their cs. just learn to program" (a bit of mis-characterization of this article, maybe, but I get annoyed when people say something I like is "unquestionably" dull)

Knowing HN, someone will surely deliver, and the front page will have 4-6 variants of "Why you should/shouldn't learn computer science"

Re: Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

#22

Post by JimboOmega »

arikrak wrote: post #16

Great article. Most students would probably prefer practical programming experience but they get CS degrees since that is all that is being offered at their college. The schools meanwhile couldn't care less about what's practical and they refuse to become a "trade school" so they instead require the students to learn difficult and often unnecessary material. Besides making it more difficult for the students who do su…

I can't tell you how much I learned on the job vs. what I learned at school.

I don't think the difficulty barrier is the issue.

The issue is the code you write out of school. Your sense of style is driven by the fact that the TA would mark you off if you didn't write a comment before your function. Your experience working with other developers is confined to that one terrible semester long project with the one idiot and the other guy who wouldn't do anything until the week it was due.

I don't mind so much that I had to learn QuickSort every year for 6 years or so. I do mind that I left school not really grokking a thing about object oriented notation. I left school thinking objects were nice and they could have methods, and you could create other objects that got those objects for free - maybe some sort of polygon class with subclasses "square" and "triangle".

But in practical terms of course it was one huge main() function for most of the "hard" problems they had us solving.

I understand not wanting to be a "trade school". Computer science is harder than that. You want people who can understand big-O notation. But teach them how to code, even just a little bit.

Re: Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

#23

Post by tseabrooks »

So, I agree with this article in spirit. Lots of programmers could've benefitted from a more programming centric approach rather than a CS approach. However, this bit gave me pause.

" I cannot tell the difference by watching them develop software."

I can't disagree with this more. While this may be true of students who were middle of the road students in CS programs. I can't definitely tell the difference between people with a formal cS background and those without in my daily work. I work with a handful of extremely talented self taught programmers but there is definitely a difference between the way they attack problems and think about coding versus the CS folks. Not to even mention the programmers I've worked with who have EE degrees. Those guys think about things and code in an entirely different third way.

All of these people / approaches are necessary... and none of them are better than the others... but pretending like they don't do things different because you want to feel like you don't need a CS degree is disingenuous.

Re: Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

#24

Post by freehunter »

CrLf wrote: post #5

"It helps to know some music theory if you write and perform music, but a lot of very successful songwriters and performers get by very happily with just enough music theory." This is an absolutely bogus comparison. Music does not need to be maintained, music does not need to be troubleshooted or debugged (and thus, reasoned about), music does not solve a problem(1). Music is an artistic expression, while computer so…

Making a noise doesn't need to be troubleshooted or debugged. Making music does, unless you're trained in musical theory well enough to not make the mistake. There are many compositions that come across my desk for advice when the author knows there's something missing, something wrong, something out of place but they can't tell what.

You can have clashing chord progressions which are "good enough to ship", but to a keen listener might throw the whole performance away. It's not a perfect analogy (none of them ever are) but it might be more apt than you think.

Re: Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

#25

Post by alecbenzer »

RegEx wrote: post #21
alecbenzer wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigh. I keeping seeing all these cs vs programming articles. I'm really waiting for a "fuck just programming, cs is fucking awesome" one, because all the ones I've read so far sound like "haha, stupid math nerds and their cs. just learn to program" (a bit of mis-characterization of this article, maybe, but I get annoyed when people say something I like is "unquestionably" dull)

Knowing HN, someone will surely deliver, and the front page will have 4-6 variants of "Why you should/shouldn't learn computer science"

After I wrote out "fuck just programming, cs is fucking awesome", I immediately thought it sounded like a good name for a blog post :)

Is my hipster showing?

Re: Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

#27

Post by arethuza »

speg wrote: post #11

I like to think of it like this: Scientists: Focus on developing new theories, solutions to abstract problems, etc. Engineers: Build tools based on the theories created by the scientists. Developers: Build products based on the tools the engineers made.

So where do mathematicians fall in that spectrum?

Re: Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

#28

Post by Peaker »

wissler wrote: post #19

Feynman had it right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL4wg6ZAFIM

I agree it's more of a mathematical discipline than a science.

But it isn't just "studying man-made creations". It's about studying computation in general. Not just man-made machines that compute.

Re: Let's Not Call It "Computer Science" If We Really Mean "Computer Programming"

#30

Post by gnaritas »

tseabrooks wrote: post #23

So, I agree with this article in spirit. Lots of programmers could've benefitted from a more programming centric approach rather than a CS approach. However, this bit gave me pause. " I cannot tell the difference by watching them develop software." I can't disagree with this more. While this may be true of students who were middle of the road students in CS programs. I can't definitely tell the difference between peo…

I'm curious about what you think those differences are, and how you think it hurts or helps.
Post reply on HN