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

31–40 of 308 posts

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

#31

Post by collingreen »

ekidd wrote: post #8
epalm wrote: post #3

Where’s the course on managing your reaction when the client starts moving the goal posts on a project that you didn’t specify well enough (or at all), because you’re a young eager developer without any scars yet?

Back in the 90s, this was actually a sneaky part of Dartmouth's CS23 Software Engineering course. At least half your grade came from a 5-person group software project which took half a semester. The groups were chosen for you, of course. The professors had a habit of sending out an email one week before the due date (right before finals week) which contained several updates to the spec. It was a surprisingly effectiv…

In uni we had a semester long group project with the stronger coders as project leaders. Group leaders controlled pass/fail for the group members and vice versa. After the leaders put together project plans for their teams and everyone was supposed to start working WHOOPSIE reorg and all the leaders got put on random teams and new people got "promoted" into leader (of groups they didn't create the plan for). If the project didn't work at the end the entire group failed.

I've never been taught anything more clearly than the lessons from that class.

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

#32

Post by markus_zhang »

> CSCI 3300: Classical Software Studies Discuss and dissect historically significant products, including VisiCalc, AppleWorks, Robot Odyssey, Zork, and MacPaint. Emphases are on user interface and creativity fostered by hardware limitations.

Definitely would love that. Reading source code is pretty hard for newbies like me. Some guidance is appreciated.

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

#33

Post by LPisGood »

d_silin wrote: post #11

"CSCI 4020: Writing Fast Code in Slow Languages" does exist, at least in the book form. Teach algorithmic complexity theory in slowest possible language like VB or Ruby. Then demonstrate how O(N) in Ruby trumps O(N^2) in C++.

Python has come along way. It’s never gonna win for something like high-frequency trading, but it will be super competitive in areas you wouldn’t expect.

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

#34

Post by zzo38computer »

I 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.)

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

#35

Post by h4ck_th3_pl4n3t »

epalm wrote: post #3

Where’s the course on managing your reaction when the client starts moving the goal posts on a project that you didn’t specify well enough (or at all), because you’re a young eager developer without any scars yet?

It's called test driven development.

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

#36

Post by lmm »

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…

Maybe he managed to work them out and understand them in the '70s, if you believe him. But he has certainly never managed to convey that understanding to anyone else. Frankly I think if you fail to explain your discovery to even a fraction of the wider community, you haven't actually discovered it.

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

#37

Post by degamad »

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…

> art [has] very limited or zero dependence on a material substrate

This seems to fundamentally underestimate the nature of most artforms.

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

#38

Post by rkagerer »

eru wrote: post #28
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…

Computer scientists should treat history like civil engineering or physics treat their histories. These are subjects that make objective progress. Art or philosophy might or might not make progress. No one can say for sure. They are bad role models.

"These are subjects that make objective progress."

As opposed to ours, where we're fond of subjective regression. ;-P

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

#39

Post by synack »

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…

When I was at RIT (2006ish?) there was an elective History of Computing course that started with the abacus and worked up to mainframes and networking. I think the professor retired years ago, but the course notes are still online.

https://www.cs.rit.edu/~swm/history/index.html

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

#40

Post by degamad »

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…

> To assert that the way problems were solved in 1970 obviously has dramatic lessons for how to solve them in 2025 seems to me to completely miss what we're actually doing with computers.

True they might not all be "dramatic lessons" for us, but to ignore them and assume that they hold no lessons for us is also a tragic waste of resources and hard-won knowledge.

Post reply on HN