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: 103376,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1014db,1042f393323e22da X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,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: 241994625 Distribution: world References: <5le6vf$15p@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <01bc6189$b074f500$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> <5li53d$irf@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> 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 <5li53d$irf@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> kaz@vision.crest.nt.com (Kaz Kylheku) writes: > I don't know what I was ranting about. It was sort of my sarcastic > reaction to all this ``computer science bad, experience good'' > business. My point is that in other engineering fields (if SW > engineering can indeed be considered one) practitioners do not > denigrate the theoretical underpinnings. I don't think anyone disagrees with this. In fact, if anything, that is sort of the point. It is not at all about "theoretical stuff is 'bad'" (whatever that might mean), it's that the "theory" is CS is basically redundant with other disciplines, but in large measure, CS as a discipline stresses this theory. So, CS - as currently constituted - is largely irrelevant redundancy. If it were reorganized as focusing for the most part on the discipline of engineering software artifacts (systems, components, whatever), then basically noone would/could have much of anything negative to say in this context. > I believe that CS programs should stand on their own. A good CS education > offers things that are not quite covered in engineering or mathematics > programs, even though there are sometimes significant overlaps. Well, the point is, the parts that aren't in mathematics (or cogsci or philosophy or...) are engineering aspects centered on a new _kind_ of engineering. So, just make the thing an engineering discipline and let the theoretical stuff stay where it naturally belongs. And just _use_ the results. If you are really interested in these aspects - go be a mathematician, ... > to other courses or for graduation requirements. Among these courses > were intro to operating systems, computer graphics and computer > architectures. The consensus among the students was that the CS > versions of these courses were far more challenging and interesting, > with better lecturers. As a result, we had quite a few engineers in > these classes. This all sounds like engineering to me. > A lot of CS subject matter just doesn't fit into engineering or > mathematics, though it could fit if the school of engineering had a > specific deparment for software engineering. OK - such as? > Should an engineering school teach compiler construction, > distributed systems Well of course they should - when CS migrates to SE. That's what this stuff is. > or artificial intelligence courses? No - and neither should CS. This is Neuro Science, CogSci and Philosophy. What makes you think CS has anything to offer here??? >Should a mathematics department? Of course not. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com