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

Academics, we need to talk

matt-welsh.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 170 posts

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#161

Post by scott_s »

laughinghan wrote: post #151
ageek123 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you and Matt are talking about different kinds of research. He's specifically talking about incremental research in computer systems . And he's 100% right that most of such work has zero impact, both over the short term and long term. I didn't read this essay as a condemnation of research in general, especially not of what he describes as "visionary, out-of-the-box, push-the-envelope research." It's talking a…

This is exactly what your grandparent (and parent to some extent) comments are arguing against. There aren't 2 different kinds of research, kind A that is never gonna go anywhere and kind B that is visionary. The vast majority of the advancement of knowledge has been what academia has always valued: probably never gonna go anywhere, but might push the envelope by an inch or a millimeter. The whole reason you have to…

I don't think you understand the point being made about different kinds of research. You are correct, it is not "kind that will never go anywhere" and "kind that is visionary".

But I do think we can separate "kind that is incremental improvement on existing systems" and "kind that is visionary change of existing systems". This is particularly true in computer systems research. It's common to see a paper where people tweak a small part of an existing system; I consider that incremental research, and it is necessary. But the value of such incremental research is dependent on the assumptions made by the researchers. Often, those assumptions are informed by impressions of what is important to the wider field of computing, and the author is saying those impressions are often misguided.

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#162

Post by cushychicken »

mdwelsh wrote: post #158
gradstudent wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to make a concrete point about bad science then do it. At the moment however you are not making that point. Your argument is that "the assumptions" (whatever those are; you provide no specifics) made by researchers don't match up with industry expectations; a wholly different point for which I have little sympathy. In my opinion the scientific authors doing the work are in the best position to judge what…

I was originally going to list examples of bad industry-focused science in the original post, but decided against it, since I didn't want to offend anyone. Your username is "gradstudent", suggesting you have read a few papers. My bet is that you've read papers where you scratch your head and say, "is that really how things work?" I read lots and lots of those papers - usually they don't end up getting published.

>My bet is that you've read papers where you scratch your head and say, "is that really how things work?" I read lots and lots of those papers

That sort of contextualizes your post as a long winded statement of "My job is hard".

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#163

Post by s986s »

aylmao wrote: post #143
s986s wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, that makes more sense which is why PRIVATE industries should create schools inorder to foster educatin relevent to them. Having organized education that is relevent to the real world is an exellent idea. However, reforming schools is not the appropriate approach. We live in a capitalist society, if they dont like whats around, they should compete. Im confident people are more than willing to pay 20k a year…

This is also very dangerous. Having schools that don't teach for the sake of fostering knowledge and critical thinking but rather just train you to serve in a specific industry/company would be the final blow to higher education in the US.

It is the consumers choice. I personally believe that vonventional universities enable creativity and freedom that a private institute would likely avoid. These types aspects are paramount to popular culture and forward thinking. However, if I want to get a job out of school, id prefer a guarentee

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#164

Post by jonsterling »

mdwelsh wrote: post #160
jonsterling wrote: post #118

Who gives a damn if academic research is relevant to industry? Almost anything that could possibly be relevant to industry is highly uninteresting. Imagine being someone who thinks that Capital could decide what is a good problem to work on...

This is so completely wrong. The most exciting work happening in systems, networking, programming languages, crypto, computer architecture, mobile, and many other subfields of computer science is highly relevant to industry and very interesting academically.

I do pure type theory, semantics, proof theory & intuitionistic mathematics. Very little of this will find a home in industry (at least, not for several decades). Industry has historically been incredibly resistant to 100% of the things I'm interested in, and I don't blame them!

But it's not just the hard & expensive stuff that they are resistant to. Even the "easy" stuff (like adopting a programming language designed by the professionals instead of the amateurs) they won't do.

I build interactive proof assistants. But I'm not pushing their applicability to industry, and I don't expect them to be relevant to industry (for a long time at least). Why? Because it's too expensive. Formal verification in type theory MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE; ask anyone who's actually ever done any industrial verification, and you will find out what tools they are using, and it has nothing at all to do with the area of research I'm involved in. This is because there are inherent trade-offs in every technique, and industrial use-cases tend to prefer a certain set of trade-offs, and I prefer a different one.

But it's a fascinating topic, and something that I'm preparing to devote the next several years of my life to. And I can safely say that a meteorite will more likely destroy Manhattan than will any of my computer science research be of widespread relevance to industry.

So, no, I totally disagree with everything you have said.

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#165

Post by mcguire »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #137
mcguire wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have read the hair shirt paper, right?

The what?

"Wearing the hair shirt: A retrospective on Haskell" by Simon Peyton Jones. (And it's not actually a paper, but was an invited talk.)

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers...

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#166

Post by samth »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #156
samth wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the core Racket developers, so I also think we're doing pretty well. :) But what you're suggesting requires persuading a large group of developers to adopt a new language -- if you have a recipe for doing that, lots of people including me would love to learn it.

I figured you might be. ;) "But what you're suggesting requires persuading a large group of developers to adopt a new language -- if you have a recipe for doing that, lots of people including me would love to learn it." What I'm suggesting is a group of people interested in trying something and reporting the results try something and report the results. You don't have to convince anyone of anything as you're responsi…

We certainly put effort into documentation, distribution, libraries, tooling, etc, and there are many Racket users who will bring up Racket unprompted. It turns out language adoption is hard, though.

And far be it from me to encourage you to stop mentioning Racket! But I think fewer of the academic projects you mentioned than you think were developed by people based on industry needs. Instead, we Racketeers are all software developers, and we make Racket the language we want to program in. The most significant Racket application at the beginning (and maybe still) is DrRacket, the IDE. Developing that has led to everything from FFI improvements to contract systems, just as an example. I expect the same to be true for many other real working systems developed by academics.

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#167

Post by nickpsecurity »

samth wrote: post #166
nickpsecurity wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figured you might be. ;) "But what you're suggesting requires persuading a large group of developers to adopt a new language -- if you have a recipe for doing that, lots of people including me would love to learn it." What I'm suggesting is a group of people interested in trying something and reporting the results try something and report the results. You don't have to convince anyone of anything as you're responsi…

We certainly put effort into documentation, distribution, libraries, tooling, etc, and there are many Racket users who will bring up Racket unprompted. It turns out language adoption is hard, though. And far be it from me to encourage you to stop mentioning Racket! But I think fewer of the academic projects you mentioned than you think were developed by people based on industry needs. Instead, we Racketeers are all s…

" But I think fewer of the academic projects you mentioned than you think were developed by people based on industry needs."

So, I issue a retraction that's the opposite of my prior claims: Rackets features, libraries, and tooling were all developed by academics or Racket community with feedback or justification from real-world projects (eg web servers) or use in industry. Purely Racket community working within the Racket community on day-to-day, academic or leisurely needs.

I'll revisit the others on the list to see which of them might be the same.

"And far be it from me to encourage you to stop mentioning Racket!"

I wouldn't anyway. You all have earned mention with the right mix of attributes in the project. :)

"Instead, we Racketeers are all software developers, and we make Racket the language we want to program in. "

That makes sense. Scratching an itch as the old FOSS motto goes. I did the same thing with a 4GL a long time ago. I understand the motivation. Staying with such a project for many years is an angle I apparently haven't caught up to. Regrettably. ;)

"The most significant Racket application at the beginning (and maybe still) is DrRacket, the IDE. Developing that has led to everything from FFI improvements to contract systems,"

That makes sense. It looks like a very complex program. It would stretch the language into programming-in-the-large and robustness territory by itself.

"I expect the same to be true for many other real working systems developed by academics."

I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for your time and information on the Racket project.

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#168

Post by nickpsecurity »

mcguire wrote: post #165
nickpsecurity wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The what?

"Wearing the hair shirt: A retrospective on Haskell" by Simon Peyton Jones. (And it's not actually a paper, but was an invited talk.) http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers...

Third time I've seen his name recently. First, a definitive guide on FP compilers. Another I think touring them. Then this. Is this guy supposed to be one of the grandmasters of FP or something? ;)

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#169

Post by mcguire »

nickpsecurity wrote: post #168
mcguire wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Wearing the hair shirt: A retrospective on Haskell" by Simon Peyton Jones. (And it's not actually a paper, but was an invited talk.) http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers...

Third time I've seen his name recently. First, a definitive guide on FP compilers. Another I think touring them. Then this. Is this guy supposed to be one of the grandmasters of FP or something? ;)

Yes, actually.

Re: Academics, we need to talk

#170

Post by nickpsecurity »

mcguire wrote: post #169
nickpsecurity wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Third time I've seen his name recently. First, a definitive guide on FP compilers. Another I think touring them. Then this. Is this guy supposed to be one of the grandmasters of FP or something? ;)

Yes, actually.

Just read the paper. Has valuable info for academics or developers wanting to take Haskell (or ML) to the next level. Thanks for the link. :)
Post reply on HN