Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #73624Re: Comp. Sci. vs Engineering (was Re: NJ wants to license programmers)
From: Richard Caley
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 17:51
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1991 17:51
45 lines
3027 bytes
3027 bytes
In article <9107300407.AA04935@spls5.ccs.mt.nec.co.jp>, Huw Jonathan Rogers (hjr) writes: hjr> Most comp. sci. departments are offspring of maths departments, hjr> not engineering. These mathematicians have steadily corrupted hjr> what comp. sci. is until, (at least as far as software is hjr> concerned), it has stopped being the engineering discipline it hjr> once was and become an excuse for lecturing maths (CSP, Hoare hjr> proof rules, loop invariants, preconditions, bullshit bullshit hjr> bullshit incapplicable totally OTT bullshit) at the undergraduate hjr> level, and an excuse for cutting down rainforests to generate hjr> huge numbers of unread articles in obscure journals at the hjr> research level. That's a bad case of mathphobia you have there. I suspect you also have a distorted picture of what the engineering departments you think you prefer do. Guess what, engineers spend most of their time doing maths. The toughest math courses I took were those aimed at engineers. It is precisely the attempt to turn CS into an engineering subject that lead to the introduction of the mathematics. hjr> There is definitely room for a programming department, but if hjr> it's got to have a parent for gods sake give it to Elec Eng, hjr> since at least they're engineers and know what "manufacturing" hjr> actually means. The average engineering dept. wouldn't touch a `programming' course unless it included enough of the math you dislike so much to ensure that a graduate `programming engineer' was as well equipped as a graduate electrical engineer to sit down, design and evaluate a program ending up with a design _and_ the math to show that the design will fullfil the spec. Suprisingly enough, engineers don't just sit down and hack up a quick bridge and then run a few hundred vehicles of various kinds over it to see if it works. hjr> However except for people doing cutting edge research, intrinsic ability hjr> isn't necessary - the skills *can* be taught. Yes, and many of those essential skils are mathematical. -- rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_ |<
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<RJC.91Jul30185134@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!helium!cstr!rjcReferences:
<15046.Jul2320.03.1391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Jul24.152751.2324@news.larc.nasa.gov> <2372.Jul2720.44.5791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Jul29.151510.17927@news.larc.nasa.gov> <9107300407.AA04935@spls5.ccs.mt.nec.co.jp>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,624fa0d9d693a21f X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-08-01 04:40:39 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!helium!cstr!rjc From: rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Comp. Sci. vs Engineering (was Re: NJ wants to license programmers) Message-ID: <RJC.91Jul30185134@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> Date: 30 Jul 91 17:51:34 GMT References: <15046.Jul2320.03.1391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Jul24.152751.2324@news.larc.nasa.gov> <2372.Jul2720.44.5791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Jul29.151510.17927@news.larc.nasa.gov> <9107300407.AA04935@spls5.ccs.mt.nec.co.jp> Sender: news@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator) Organization: Centre for Speech Technology Research Lines: 45 In-Reply-To: huw@spls5.ccs.mt.nec.co.jp's message of 30 Jul 91 04:07:29 GMT