From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109fba,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid109fba,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Any research putting c above ada? Date: 1997/05/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 241978313 Distribution: world References: Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article T Wheeley writes: > > > Well then let's not bother teaching computer science at all! Why not just > > > > Sounds like a good idea to me. > > So how do you intend teaching people to use computers then? Through Assuming by "use" you mean "program", the answer is simple: this stuff is covered by the engineering discipline for constructing software artifacts (systems, libraries, whatever). > osmosis? Or do you think that computer science is like car mechanics -- No, as I've repeatedly pointed out, I think the non-redundant bits are like engineering. > bit of experience and you've got it. After all, we don't need car > mechanics degrees as that'd just be physics and mechanical and electronic > engineering, wouldn't it? Wrong analogy. I suppose, for car mechanics, you would need to substitute "programmer" or some such. Someone who clearly knows what's going on, but not at the level of the engineer. > > Incorrect analogies. These are all sciences which have their own core > > subject which is well delineated. The fact that they borrow from > > ideas in other related sciences is irrelevant. The point is that CS > > has no such core subject area - _all_ it has is borrowed and then > > watered down from other disciplines. > > Of course it is! CS didn't exist 50 years agao; it had to come from > somewhere -- namely maths and electronics. All the early computer What's that have to do with it? Back in 1953 or so, Aeronautics didn't exist 50 years ago. But just because they found they really could make use of differential equations and discrete analysis and such didn't make them run off thinking they should be developing the _theory_ of this stuff. No, they used the results in the new engineering discipline. > scientists were either mathematicians, elec engineers or both. It is a > developing field, and I would say the core subject area is programming and > algorithm design. Algorithms are like mechanical parts -- designedby > specialists in that area, with the *aid* of mathematics, not as a part of > maths. Hmmm, maybe this is part of the disagreement. I don't see algorithms like mechanical parts at all. I see them as much more like basic results in DiffEq or discrete analysis. First, they can be used completely outside programming or computers at all. So, they clearly have no dependence on these things. Algorithm invention, construction and such has always been, and will always be, a part of mathematics (of particular relevance here is discrete mathemantics). So, what really is the point of saying: hey CS wants to do that too! Second, in programming, they are _used_ in the _design_ of the analog of mechanical parts: components or some such. > > > The fact is that a CS degree combines all these factors into a single > > > degree related to the study of computers, and puts them in the correct > > > context. > > > > This would be the start of something that made sense if the core > > subject was _engineering software artifacts_. > > > > > > > Yes the idea of dominance in sequences is part of computer science, > > > but they way I was taught it in maths is not particularly relvant to > > > the complexity of algorithms. > > > > This sounds irrelevant. _Counting_ is the core of complexity analysis > > and that is a part of Combinatorics. _Applying_ the various relevant > > results of Combinatorics to _engineering_ problems in software is > > perfectly sensible. Attempting to dream up new ways of counting or > > more sophisticated ways, or ways that handle new situations or > > whatever is Combinatorics - not CS. > > You are repeating what I was saying. Engineering degrees present Calculus > in the correct manner for Engineering, and so Computer Science presents > Combinatorics in the relevant manner for alg analysis. Perhaps we are in more agreement than not. Maybe we are even in "violent agreement" and the only problem is that we are just using different terms to refer to the same thing. I guess, the only point left, would be, well then, why not just say CS is really a branch of engineering, put it in the engineering school, and treat it as such. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com