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: 1997/05/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 242494297 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: 1997-05-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article Michael Norrish writes: > jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) writes: > > > 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. > > This is simply not true. However one wants to value theoretical Shrug - IMO, it is true. > computer science as to usefulness, there are parts of it that simply > do not get done elsewhere. Who else except computer scientists care > about compiler construction That falls under engineering. > and the attached theory of language > parsing? Linguists, mathematicians (formal languages), and philosophers. Where do you think this stuff came from? The standard "language hierarchy" used as the basis for recognizers is from Chomsky - a linguist, not a CSer. > Where else is the theory of communicating processes (things like CSP > and CCS by Hoare and Milner respectively) going to live except in > computer science? Engineering again. Other than how this works in actual software systems, who cares? > There's plenty of theoretical work out there, that > is NOT just maths, or just engineering. Maybe - haven't seen it yet... > My own work is theoretical (a formal model of C), and is not something > I could do anywhere except in a computer science setting. Maybe, but I suppose that's because a formal model of C is completely uninteresting outside the context of how it can/should/was intended (or not) to be used to write programs. But in reality, this sort of thing is done by linguists (models of languages...) > As a theoretical computer scientist, I am sure that there is no better > name for what my peers do. Somehow, this doesn't surprise me. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com