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

“Computer science is not about computers”

quoteinvestigator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 293 posts

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#191

Post by tom_mellior »

js8 wrote: post #73

My view is quite unconventional, but I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description). Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series). Of course, there are larger sets, but they mostly serve as a theater (just like countable infinity is just a theater…

> I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description).

This is a strange claim since the entire field was founded upon the investigation of potentially (and often actually) infinite computations.

> Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series).

Define "most". Do it in a way that makes real and complex analysis and topology (and probably many other branches) the smaller part of mathematics.

Most importantly though, my problem with this kind of discussion is that the question itself is meaningless. Not everything can be classified into neat " X is a Y" relationships. Not everything needs to be classified into such relationships. Even if the discussion reached a consensus, that consensus would be meaningless. Computer science is a part of math? OK, but so what? Computer science is not a part of math? OK, but so what? Neither conclusion would tell us anything useful.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#193

Post by lmilcin »

incognito_limey wrote: post #190
lmilcin wrote: post #188

Computer Science is to software development like theoretical mathematics is to economics. Sure, there are some formulas in economics, but 99.99% of the time you are not going to prove anything mathematically and you are just looking up a formula written by somebody else. On the other hand economics has a huge amount of stuff that is not covered by mathematics at all. It is disheartening to see so many people wasting…

This also reflects how broken hiring is in tech. Leetcode and algorithm memorisation has very little to do with being a "good" developer. Can you communicate your ideas well? Can you understand and follow up when requirements are not clear? Are you able to work with others well? This last point in particular is where I find a lot of candidates fall down. They maybe able to invert a binary tree, but if they have to ha…

That is exactly what I am seeing. I think of things like ability to communicate, lead, etc. as force multipliers.

It does not matter much how good your technical skills are if other force multipliers are very low.

More than that, people who are bad at communicating and relations tend to stay away from these problems -- trying to bring every problem to technical level -- basically ensuring they are continuing to be at a disadvantage.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#194

Post by creamytaco »

ldjb wrote: post #131
soegaard wrote: post #75

The beginning of this lecture (30 seconds in) by Harold Abelson (author of SICP - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs) explains why Computer Science is a terrible name here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J_xL4IGhJA&list=PLE18841CAB... Not sure about the year.

That lecture (from 2005) is how I first came across this idea of computer science not being about computers. It was interesting (though not massively surprising) to discover that similar arguments have been made for several decades earlier.

That video lecture is from 1986.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#195

Post by twobitshifter »

js8 wrote: post #73

My view is quite unconventional, but I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description). Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series). Of course, there are larger sets, but they mostly serve as a theater (just like countable infinity is just a theater…

Before there was a CS major at many universities you would major in mathematics if you wanted to work with computers.

John Kemeny majored in mathematics and taught “Finite Mathematics” while a professor. He saw the application of BASIC not as a new field but as a way to simplify computers so that it wasn’t only mathematicians and scientists who could program them.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#198

Post by Planktonne »

xwolfi wrote: post #163
triska wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once read an article suggesting that reading computer code does not activate the regions of the brain that are involved in language processing: https://news.mit.edu/2020/brain-reading-computer-code-1215 This may indicate that the sampled programmers did not program in the way it can be done for example with declarative languages, i.e., primarily as a linguistic activity where we describe what we know about the task…

Yeah I remember that I started reaching my first CS successes once I knew enough of the mathematics and properties of the hardware to "think like a machine" and was trying to explain some of my peers still struggling how to do a more step by step execution in their mind. In hindsight it's clear that you dont tell a story when you program a computer or not the way I'd describe my day or teach my kids about a phenomeno…

I have a very different experience; when I code, it feels similar to mapping out a conversation or constructing a narrative, and this is how I teach it to my students.

I've met people who view it as mathematics or philosophy or a bunch of other things; in the end, I think there is a wide range of valid mental models for how computers function and therefore how to communicate with them.

Re: “Computer science is not about computers”

#200

Post by xtiansimon »

tom_mellior wrote: post #191
js8 wrote: post #73

My view is quite unconventional, but I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description). Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series). Of course, there are larger sets, but they mostly serve as a theater (just like countable infinity is just a theater…

> I believe, computer science is a branch of mathematics that deals with large but finite structures (so they need an algorithmic description). This is a strange claim since the entire field was founded upon the investigation of potentially (and often actually) infinite computations. > Compare with most of "legacy" mathematics, which studies countable structures (so the description can use arbitrary series). Define "…

> “ Not everything can be classified into neat " X is a Y" relationships.”

I’m with you on skepticism of the x-is-y relationship; however, I read the comment as comparing math versus computing academics.

Then, the so-what answer would be informative for the neophyte or youth who is interested In computing but struggles with mathematics instruction. Right? That’s a real thing in education.

In fact I find this to be the principal benefit of online MOOC courses. You can compare styles of instruction, and pedagogy from major universities from across the US (and internationally).

Post reply on HN