71–80 of 205 posts
While we're at it, why is it called Computer Science ? I think "Computational Mathematics" or something would make more sense.
A introductary (undergrad) computational mathematics course at my university covers; numerical solutions to PDEs, Inverse problems, Regularisation problems, numerical optimisation etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't talk for the parent, but one significant way I expect people with formal training and people without it to differ is in how the knowledge of data structures and algorithms affects their work. If you stumble upon a problem that cries for a trie or a splay tree and you don't know they exist, you'll have a very difficult time solving the problem with adequate performance. If you are lucky and dedicated and talen…
> I can't talk for the parent, but one significant way I expect people with formal training and people without it to differ is in how the knowledge of data structures and algorithms affects their work. And how often in your experience you stumble upon these kind of problems? In my experience, the clever parts are about 5% to 20%. Of course, there can be projects where the clever parts outnumber the non-clever parts,…
Caveat: These problems might not happen often in less data intensive domains but, when they do happen, they are certainly very important in my experience.
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…
This could not be more true. A formal CS background gives people a very valuable toolset with which to program. It's something you can't fake, and if you know what to look for, it's instantly recognizable. But if you don't have a CS background, yeah, I could see why it would all look the same to you. A CS person can easily learn programming; it's second nature to them. But a programmer does not learn deeper theory as…
This is not true, if you've ever seen academic code...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious about what you think those differences are, and how you think it hurts or helps.
It is hard to answer this because a lot of the trite answers are indeed false. A computer science student may be more able to tell you whether an algorithm is O(n^3) or O(2^n), but the normal (and experienced) programmer will be able to tell you either is "slow" and fix it just as quickly. But there is a style of thinking that can come out of a study of computer science that can be very difficult to obtain on your ow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is hard to answer this because a lot of the trite answers are indeed false. A computer science student may be more able to tell you whether an algorithm is O(n^3) or O(2^n), but the normal (and experienced) programmer will be able to tell you either is "slow" and fix it just as quickly. But there is a style of thinking that can come out of a study of computer science that can be very difficult to obtain on your ow…
I would love to read an expanded version of this, how may I interest you to write it? :)
Oh, and this expands my Haskell point: http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2908
It's worth noting that a sharp high schooler can learn to program - many do. It's a rare, rare high schooler that can learn how to use computer science. Most CS grads don't. And we wonder sometimes why our software is so cruddy.
While we're at it, why is it called Computer Science ? I think "Computational Mathematics" or something would make more sense.
Computational maths (research area of mine) is its own field, and is very different to computer science. A introductary (undergrad) computational mathematics course at my university covers; numerical solutions to PDEs, Inverse problems, Regularisation problems, numerical optimisation etc.
I'm not saying it's incorrect, but it just doesn't seem to fit well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This could not be more true. A formal CS background gives people a very valuable toolset with which to program. It's something you can't fake, and if you know what to look for, it's instantly recognizable. But if you don't have a CS background, yeah, I could see why it would all look the same to you. A CS person can easily learn programming; it's second nature to them. But a programmer does not learn deeper theory as…
A CS person can easily learn programming This is not true, if you've ever seen academic code...
"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…
> Music is an artistic expression, while computer software isn't. Unless it is? The sentiment that the pursuit has to be entirely about doing a job or providing utility is frighteningly inhuman. I need to go for a walk after reading that. Or maybe watch some demoscene.
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 .
I have always considered computer science to be information science and be a part of mathematics and not a separate science. But then again, as a physicist i might be wrong. It's not meant to be diminutive at all (i am after all a programmer) but i consider programming to be a tool, like maths (and consider the two to be inseparable).
People who majored in informatics would study such things as information theory, approaches to AI/machine learning, models of human cognition, communications (as in signal/noise, data compression, etc.), and so on, and would undoubtedly be required to take programming classes, where programming would be considered a tool to help people learn informatics.
People who majored in programming (wherever that was done, including industrial training and apprenticeships), would be required to take some informatics classes, where informatics was treated as a tool to help them learn to be better programmers.
Just changing the name to informatics would go a long way, in my opinion, toward clearing up the mess. Employers who demand CS degrees as if the degree meant "better-trained programmer" might think differently if they were called informatics degrees and stand in contrast to programming degrees (or certifications) that emphasized practical industrial software dev. And informatics departments would be freed up to be a more general resource to more than just programmers.