🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2372.Jul2720.44.5791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>In article <1991Jul24.152751.2324@news.larc.nasa.gov> burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:
>> >many computer scientists have assured me, the topics covered by (for
>>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Oh? does this mean you're not one?
>
>Correct.
>
>>   have you actually *read* Knuth's Art of computer programming?
>
>Yes, and I've worked nearly 20% of the exercises. You?

yup...his books are also excellent references for research reports 
in (gasp!) computer science...good starting place for understanding
random number generation, but that can't be...that involves number
theory and manipulation of discrete numbers...thats not programming,
that has NOTHING to do with programming, that is computer science...
but then, what is it doing in Knuth's book??? (see CACM article
"Random Number Generators, good ones are hard to find")

>
>  [ various claims that Knuth's books and computer ``science'' are ]
>  [ closely related fields ]
>

You're obviously interpreting his books they way you want to, and
can't even seen any other side to it...

>You are in a minority of computer scientists on this one. Computer
>``science'' in fact concerns itself very little with real computers, let
>alone programming. We'd be in trouble if materials science no longer
>dealt with real materials...
>

Lets see, you're admittedly NOT a computer scientist, yet you KNOW
exactly what computer science IS or IS NOT? Doesn't that sound a bit 
ludicrous to YOU??? Thats kinda like me *knowing* exactly what
opthalmology is and is not because I wear glasses and have friends who
are opthalmology...By the way, material science also deals with "not 
real" materials. Based on THEORY of materials, it is possible to
develop a material that currently does not exist (not real) and have
it become "real" later...

>Don't be a fool. There's a huge difference between a mechanic and a
>mechanical engineer. I shouldn't have to explain this to you, and you
>shouldn't be playing on the fact that ``mechanic'' and ``mechanical''
>have the same root.

Playing on word roots?? try again...
If you knew *anything* about how many people get
interested in a field to begin with, you would understand my
statement. Many engineers started out as I mentioned, taking things
apart and putting them back together...many graduated from *that* to
do the typical teenage thing...modifying cars for better performance.
Some showed pure genius in being able to "build" a car basically from
scratch...the cars they built were works of art, but I guess you can't
see art in mechanical things...some of these entered engineering
school, others did not, but simply continued what they were good at
(but which they had NO formal training). Building and working on cars
is a licensed profession, but people WITHOUT licenses CAN and DO build
and work on cars. Often these cars are works of art, but I guess that
depends on how you define art...
 
>                   My questions about hobbyists still stand, and you
>know it. In most artistic endeavors---including programming!---there are
>many recognized cases of young geniuses. I defy you to show that the
>same is true of licensed professions.

I just did...

Oh, I see, you're limiting it to licensed professions...the point
you're missing is that the licensing has nothing to do with whether
something is an art or a science, it has to do with the impact of that
field on human health and safety...


>
>
>I'm glad you agree with my analogy once again. A competent programmer
>can create an ``adequate'' program by only applying what he was taught,
>without a single spark of creativity---but great programmers aim for
>much more than ``adequate'', just as great musicians do. Engineers, in
>general, don't.

Do you KNOW "Engineers in general don't" ?? How do you KNOW?? are you 
an engineer? have you gone through an engineering curriculm? have you
worked as an engineer?

>
>> >There's your confusion again. Computer science and programming have
>> >about as much to do with each other as mathematics and programming or
>> >mathematics and physics.
>> Very good! I'm impressed, you made my point for me! Mathematics is the
>> basis for Physics ("...the mother of ALL sciences..."),
>
>Finally! Since you agree with me so vehemently here, I'm sure you'll be
>willing to disavow your claim that computer science departments teach
>anyone how to program. After all, mathematics departments don't teach
>people how to do physics or programming, and you just admitted the

no, but people who do physics MUST have a VERY strong background in math

>analogy. Therefore, do you agree with my main point, that a Department
>of Programming would be much more than a mere subset of the computer
>science department? If not, you're contradicting yourself. And if you
>chop this paragraph, or the quote and double quote right above it, then
>this discussion is over.

Son, this discussion has been over for a long time. 
>
>> could you name some irrelevant material that is taught in computer
>> science that would NEVER be used by a programmer in the real world?
>
>Turing machines.
>
Oh, I see the problem now...you're NOT a computer scientist. You come
across the idea of a turing machine, and you're background is not
strong enough for you to realize that a turing machine is the
theoretical basis for PROGRAMMING languages...But then again I guess
you don't need to UNDERSTAND what you're doing, you just do it because
you're an artist...

>> You appear to be facinated by the phrase "the art of programming".
>> What you don't realize is that there is "art" in every field of
>> endeavor, but there is also the "mechanics" of that field.
>  [ blah blah blah, similar generalities ]
>
>Fine. If there is any art in most engineering fields, it is so deeply
>hidden that most people can accept that an engineer who passes a test is
>competent to actually design something in the real world. This is just
>not true of programming. Or are you so brilliant that you can compose
>an appropriate test? If so, I'd love to see it.

I never said I was brilliant, but I'm smart enough to not make
sweeping statements in fields outside my expertise...
You see a strict division between art and science, where none exists.
Which side do you come from? the art side or the science side?
There is much art in science and engineering, if you'd just open your
eyes to see it...there is also much science and engineering in art..

>
>I don't think one computer scientist in ten will agree with that
>statement. ``Training the gift of great programming? Ha, ha, ha.'' Why
>don't you ask some computer scientists and see?
>

Actually try about 7 in 10...
I asked...they agree with me...and these "computer scientist" range from
BS degreed programmers, to PhD degreed scientist working in applying
computers to just about any aspect of life, even computer art...and
even those teaching the subject...

You've been very adamant about programming not being part of computer
science and that schools do not teach *programming*...tell me, just 
what *would* you teach in your "Department of Programming" ? Now
remember, its NOT computer science, so you can't take classes from
computer science...just what *would* you teach??? or are you saying
that programming *can't* be taught? that good programmers just *are*
(my that sounds arrogant!)


John