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

181–190 of 205 posts

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

#181

Post by swa14 »

debacle wrote: post #10
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #6

Writing applications: go ahead, program by the seat of your pants. Architect a solution to a big problem: theory comes in very handy.

The theories behind computer science have little very application in large software engineering. software engineering != computer science

Hell, software engineering isn't even engineering.

'you will discover that software engineering has accepted as its charter "How to program if you cannot.".'

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD10xx/EWD1036...

"Software engineering" has little to do with engineering and its principles and everything with applying buzzwords to squeeze the most money out of whomever was suckered into paying for the project.

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

#183

Post by cliftonk »

Contrarian take on the issue:

I wrote a Quake 3 mod in C++ (directional damage modification, server/client magazine+reload, and a few other things not-so-difficult things) in high school around age 17. I then did a CS undergrad at a top 6 university.

I learned more about programming writing that mod than my combined experiences at school.

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

#184

Post by joe_the_user »

I've studied theoretical math and computer programming.

Coming from theoretical math, I feel like the reason that computer science is dull that as a part of math, it is mind-bendingly difficult.

The almost no "substantial" theories of computer science because they would have extraordinarily encompassing abstract statements about what is possible to compute, essentially to even think about. P =? NP is a good example. Unlike other Millennium Math Problems, there has essentially been no positive progress on the question. The only theorems are about how this or that tool won't help us. And P=? NP is a simple, even "obvious" statement from the right standpoint.

Essentially, most of the generic theories of CS are constructions to show something either possible or impossible.

I'd wonder if you could teach CS as something like the ragged edge of mathematical logic. Might make it authentically interesting ... for a few people but it would probably wind-up being less practical. Sigh...

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

#185

Post by petitmiam »

j-b wrote: post #135
dxbydt wrote: post #118

fwiw, an opposite take, from a decade ago. at my cs pgm, the assistant professors were supposed to make a presentation on day 1 so the grad students could make an informed decision which prof to work with, which subjects to sign up for. the software engg prof was a glib, entreprenurial hotshot who said "my students have been placed at netscape, sun, microsoft, oracle". he talked about industry partnerships, internshi…

Degrees don't matter so much. Can you learn? Are you smart? Can you ship good code (given enough training)? Real programming skills comes through experience and domain knowledge. I am less interested in the educational background of developers that I've hired than I am of their future growth potential which has more to do with personality than IQ.

sadly not every employer is like you

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

#186

Post by underwater »

jerf wrote: post #57
gnaritas wrote: post #30

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…

I havethat's usages. You are falling for he fallacy of believing that because you are a talented that only people with the same experience and knowledge can be talented. This mistake I see in the many the recruiting articles that make it to HN that boil down to "how to here someone go is exactly like myself".

I have worked with extremely intelligent CS graduates. When it comes to the really involved algorithmic work they leave me in the dust. However every programming job I've ever had has been focused on the other stuff like writing tests and building clean abstractions and maintainable code 99% of the time.

When it comes to this stuff CS grads are no better than any other programmer. In fact, new graduates are often worse because they've never had to build and maintain massive systems over any significant period of time.

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

#187

Post by duaneb »

eru wrote: post #108
duaneb wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you take attitude, then you'd have to reject all science because it relies on induction.

Oh, nothing wrong with induction. Just with waffling around.

I think Hume would disagree.

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

#188

Post by Morcane »

ank286 wrote: post #96

To a computer scientist, programming is merely a tool to help bring their computer science ideas to life. Writing a bunch of APIs and calling them will only take you so far. After a certain point, theory will prevail because math (computer science is applied math) is the truth. Also the "computer programming" major is called Infoscience majors at the top engineering schools, those students are laughed at, you don't h…

If 'hardcore' CS students laugh at others because they 'are not prepared for mental toughness' (el-oh-el), they're not really smart (CS) students....

Such arrogance in today's youth, it's astounding.

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

#189

Post by koide »

irahul wrote: post #106
koide wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question posed was "how do they differ?" not "how important is that difference?". If you ask me the latter, I'd say that for many domains it's not that important (see the caveat below.) On the other hand, for Google and Facebook and similar companies it's certainly very important, which is why all their interviews are mainly about how well you can reason about algorithms and data structures. Caveat: These problem…

> The question posed was "how do they differ?" not "how important is that difference?" And the question arose from the claim that the formally taught and self-taught programmers take different approaches in general. It goes without saying that a problem that can be solved effectively using a trie will be approached in 2 different ways by someone who knows tries and someone who does not. The claim made in the OP was b…

The fact that 80% of the time the approach is not important to get the desired result because the task only operates over small n or similar does not mean that the approaches are equal.

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

#190

Post by mironathetin »

dxbydt wrote: post #118

fwiw, an opposite take, from a decade ago. at my cs pgm, the assistant professors were supposed to make a presentation on day 1 so the grad students could make an informed decision which prof to work with, which subjects to sign up for. the software engg prof was a glib, entreprenurial hotshot who said "my students have been placed at netscape, sun, microsoft, oracle". he talked about industry partnerships, internshi…

This is not an opposite take, if you write, you found yourself are a royal prick.

This confirms the 0.1% rule of the op.

Post reply on HN