Functional programming exists in any reputable computer science course. Standard is haskel, For a true "unlearning" it might need to be a third or forth year subject
Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
111–120 of 308 posts
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#112I’m interested in the history of software development, and detailed case studies. What book(s) should I read?
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#113I think it would be a good idea, especially CSCI 3300. (Learning them in a course is not the only way to learn computer and other stuff, but is (and should be) one way to do.) (However, CSCI 2100 shouldn't be necessary if you should learn stuff other than OOP the first time, even if you also learn OOP.)
I really don't understand the modern hate towards OOP. From my experience over the last few decades working with large C and C++ codebases, the former turns into a big ball of mud first.
Most hate of OOP comes from the definition that OOP = inheritance. Meanwhile, among people that consider themselves OO programmers, there is often the same revulsion towards inheritance and a preference for encapsulation while still calling that OOP. Because each language is subtly different, these things tend to flame war.
Which of course people do and why of course you have:
> PSYC 4410: Obsessions of the Programmer Mind
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#114> CSCI 3300: Classical Software Studies Alan Kay, my favorite curmudgeon, spent decades trying to remind us we keep reinventing concepts that were worked out in the late 70s and he’s disappointed we’ve been running in circles ever since. He’s still disappointed because very few programmers are ever introduced to the history of computer science in the way that artists study the history of art or philosophers the histo…
I recall seeing a project on github with a comment:
Q: "Sooo... what does this do that Ansible doesn't?"
A: "I've never heard of Ansible until now."
Lots of people think they are the first to come across some concept or need. Like every generation when they listen to songs with references to drugs and sex.
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#115> It's about being able to implement your ideas. No, it's about creating something which does something useful and is easy to maintain. Plumbers have great ideas and approaches but you just want plumbing which works and can be fixed . It's time developers realised they are plumbers not **** artists. [HN reduced my expletive to just four asterisks which seems a bit reductionist]
Speak for yourself, please.
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#116Many computer science programs today have basically turned into coding trade schools.
Students can use frameworks, but they don’t understand why languages are designed the way they are, or how systems evolved over time.
It’s important to remember that computing is also a field of ideas and thought, not just implementation.
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#117It is interesting that no software engineering or computer science course I’ve seen has ever spent any time on CI/CD. Jenkins, Docker, Kubernetes, none of these sorts of things - and I don’t even mean these specific technologies, but moreover nothing even in their ballpark.
> It is interesting that no software engineering or computer science course I’ve seen has ever spent any time on CI/CD. It's hard to fit everything student needs to know in the curriculum. Someone else posted here they had 10 pages of proofs per week, for one course. I would have been fired for assigning so much homework! I was a CS professor at a local college. My solution was to ignore CS1 and CS2 curriculum (we we…
>Someone else posted here they had 10 pages of proofs per week, for one course.
Huh. As a professor, I would not be able to grade this kind of volume in any serious capacity. Especially since proofs need to be scrutinized carefully for completeness and soundness. I wonder how their instructor manages.
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#118> CSCI 3300: Classical Software Studies Alan Kay, my favorite curmudgeon, spent decades trying to remind us we keep reinventing concepts that were worked out in the late 70s and he’s disappointed we’ve been running in circles ever since. He’s still disappointed because very few programmers are ever introduced to the history of computer science in the way that artists study the history of art or philosophers the histo…
I recall seeing a project on github with a comment: Q: "Sooo... what does this do that Ansible doesn't?" A: "I've never heard of Ansible until now." Lots of people think they are the first to come across some concept or need. Like every generation when they listen to songs with references to drugs and sex.
Come on music is very much cross generational?
I think software engineering have so many social problems to a level that other fields just don't have. Dogmatism, superstition, toxicity ... you name it.
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#119Ls and not cat? Does the author have no memory of cat -v shitstorm?
ls and not mpv or ffmpeg?
Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)
#120> CSCI 3300: Classical Software Studies Alan Kay, my favorite curmudgeon, spent decades trying to remind us we keep reinventing concepts that were worked out in the late 70s and he’s disappointed we’ve been running in circles ever since. He’s still disappointed because very few programmers are ever introduced to the history of computer science in the way that artists study the history of art or philosophers the histo…
> He’s still disappointed because very few programmers are ever introduced to the history of computer science in the way that artists study the history of art or philosophers the history of philosophy.
Software development/programming is a field where the importance of planning and design lies somewhere between ignored and outright despised. The role of software architect is both ridiculed and vilified, whereas the role of the brave solo developer is elevated to the status of hero.
What you get from that cultural mix is a community that values ad-hoc solutions made up on the spot by inexperienced programmers who managed to get something up and running, and at the same time is hostile towards those who take the time to learn from history and evaluate tradeoffs.
See for example the cliche of clueless developers attacking even the most basic aspects of software architecture such as the existence of design patterns.
with that sort of community, how does anyone expect to build respect for prior work.