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

Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

prog21.dadgum.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 308 posts

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#121

Post by pathseeker »

corysama wrote: post #10

> 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…

programmers are introduced to CS history, it's just mostly irrelevant or poorly contextualized so there are no useful lessons

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#122

Post by xmprt »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #21
corysama wrote: post #10

> 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…

The history of art or philosophy spans millenia. The effective history of computing spans a lifetime or three. There's no sense comparing the two. In the year 2500 it might make sense to be disappointed that people don't compare current computational practices with things done in 2100 or even 1970, but right now, to call what we have "history" does a disservice to the broad meaning of that term. Another issue: art an…

That gives even more reason to study the history of CS. Even artists study contemporary art from the last few decades.

Given the pace of CS (like you mentioned) 50 years might as well be centuries and so early computing devices and solutions are worth studying to understand how the technology has evolved and what lessons we can learn and what we can discard.

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#123

Post by penguin_booze »

CSCI 0001: Functional programming and type theory (taught in English [0])

For decades, the academia mafia, through impenetrable jargon and intimidating equations, have successfully prevented the masses from adopting this beautiful paradigm of computation. That changes now. Join us to learn why monads really are monoids in the category of endofunctors (oh my! sorry about that).

[0] Insert your favourite natural language

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#124

Post by cranium »

I'd add classes about:

  - telling clients that the proof-of-concept is non-conclusive so it's either bag it or try something different
  - spending innovation tokens in something else than a new frontend framework and/or backend language
  - understanding that project management methods are tools (not rites) and if your daily standup is 45min then there's a problem

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#125

Post by rini17 »

corysama wrote: post #10

> 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…

Every attempt at teaching IT history I was subject to, was clouded so much with personal opinions and attitudes that it was anecdotal and preachy.

I think assessing piece of hardware/software is much more difficult and time consuming than art. So there are no people with really broad experience.

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#126

Post by kunley »

kragen wrote: post #100
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The history of art or philosophy spans millenia. The effective history of computing spans a lifetime or three. There's no sense comparing the two. In the year 2500 it might make sense to be disappointed that people don't compare current computational practices with things done in 2100 or even 1970, but right now, to call what we have "history" does a disservice to the broad meaning of that term. Another issue: art an…

> Computation has overwhelming dependence on the performance of its physical substrate (by various metrics, including but not limited to: cpu speed, memory size, persistent storage size, persistent storage speed, network bandwidth, network scope, display size, display resolution This was clearly true in 01970, but it's mostly false today. It's still true today for LLMs and, say, photorealistic VR. But what I'm doing…

One question, why are you prepending zero to every single year?

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#128

Post by Manfred »

rini17 wrote: post #125
corysama wrote: post #10

> 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…

Every attempt at teaching IT history I was subject to, was clouded so much with personal opinions and attitudes that it was anecdotal and preachy. I think assessing piece of hardware/software is much more difficult and time consuming than art. So there are no people with really broad experience.

Your experience with bad teachers seems more like an argument in favor of better education than against it. It's possible to develop better teaching material and methods if there is focus on a subject, even if it's time consuming.

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#129

Post by epolanski »

Jm2c but people tend to conflate two overlapping but different fields.

CS is the study of computation, SE is the study of building computer programs.

Those overlap in the same way physics and chemistry do. Of course the two overlap and chemist's are also exposed to classical and quantum physics and know about Dirac spaces or Born-Oppenheimer equations. But the bulk and core of a chemist curriculum will involve few of these courses and with a focus on what's relevant to the chemist. E.g understanding how quantum physics make water appear transparent in a glass but blue in a lake or deep pool.

Same is for CS and SE. Of course they are related, but CS is much more focused on the theoretical and mathematical parts of computing, not the practical side of building systems.

One wants to know what can be computed and how and with what properties. The other wants to know how to build computer programs, but does not need to understand and be intimate with the mathematics of type inference or Hoare logic.

Re: Computer science courses that don't exist, but should (2015)

#130

Post by wanderingjew »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #21
corysama wrote: post #10

> 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…

The history of art or philosophy spans millenia. The effective history of computing spans a lifetime or three. There's no sense comparing the two. In the year 2500 it might make sense to be disappointed that people don't compare current computational practices with things done in 2100 or even 1970, but right now, to call what we have "history" does a disservice to the broad meaning of that term. Another issue: art an…

> Another issue: art and philosophy have very limited or zero dependence on a material substrate. Computation has overwhelming dependence on the performance of its physical substrate

That's absolutely false. Do you know why MCM furniture is characterized by bent plywood? It's because we developed the glues that enabled this during world war II. In fashion you had a lot more colors beginning in the mid 1800s because of the development of synthetic dyes. Really odd that oil paints were really perfected around Holland (major place for flax and thus linseed oil), which is what the dutch masters _did_. Architectural mcmansions began because of the development of pre-fab roof trusses in the 70s and 80s.

How about philosophy? Well, the industrial revolution and it's consequences have been a disaster for the human race. I could go on.

The issue is that engineers think they're smart and can design things from first principles. The problem is that they're really not, and design things from first principles.

Post reply on HN