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

31–40 of 205 posts

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

#31

Post by 27182818284 »

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)

Maybe its my physics background, but I've always found the problem to be a lack of analogues.

We have physics, but we also have mechanical and civil engineering. Likewise we should have a computer science major and a developer major. Just as how mechanical and civil engineers still take some physics and math courses, the developers will take some of the CS courses in addition to specialized courses for their major.

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

#32

Post by RegEx »

alecbenzer wrote: post #25
RegEx wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. Unfortunately, I have only but one fuck to give, so I find your title a bit overwhelming ;)

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

#34

Post by lukejduncan »

taybin wrote: post #2

I was with him until he started complaining about being asked how to implement a hashmap and how this implied that the interviewer had reimplemented Java.utils. How would you know when to use a hashmap and when to use a list if you don't know anything about big-O notation?

I like the question. I would never expect a candidate to know a perfect implementation but they better understand the general concepts. It's hard to tell the tone from his writing, but if a candidate was snarky about "why not java utils" I'd be less inclined to want to work with them. The question can be answered many ways without being hostile to the interviewer.

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

#35

Post by Flenser »

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. In what ways do they attack problems differently?

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

#36

Post by flyhighplato »

I agree that modern "computer science" educations often don't teach enough to allow you to make great software, nor enough to open your eyes to the grander concepts. But you can't take that to mean that there is some subset of concepts that are useful to you and that this is all you need to know to hone your craft.

I do not like these strange lines in the sand that are drawn between engineers and scientists. These distinctions are artificial and a curious mind shouldn't be trapped on one side or the other.

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

#37

Post by tomstuart »

I agree that a lot of people only need to learn how to program, but I find computer science genuinely fascinating and mind-expanding, so it's a shame that more programmers don't feel like they're able to access it, either because of unfamiliarity with formal mathematics or a justifiable aversion to the "category theory or GTFO" attitude.

Which is why I'm writing http://experthuman.com/computation-book.

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

#39

Post by gnaritas »

taybin wrote: post #2

I was with him until he started complaining about being asked how to implement a hashmap and how this implied that the interviewer had reimplemented Java.utils. How would you know when to use a hashmap and when to use a list if you don't know anything about big-O notation?

You can have an intuitive sense of how many operations you're performing without knowing big-O notation.

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

#40

Post by loboman »

arethuza wrote: post #27
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?

Well it's not a spectrum really, you need a mix to do anything. Scientists need developers (or need to be developers too) if they want to do experiments related to their theories, or if they want to push them to the world. Developers need to understand what scientists say, or they need to be partly scientists, to be able to build up their own small theories whenever a problem is difficult enough. And so on.

Back to your original question, maths is an extremely useful tool both for CS research and development. A pure mathematician is providing material for all of CS to work. But CS people, programmers, and so on need to know some math too.

Post reply on HN