🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul29.151510.17927@news.larc.nasa.gov> burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:
>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:
>>> >

...

>
>>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...

	I am a Computer Scientist - and indeed Dan is absolutely correct
in his assertion that most comp. sci. concerns itself little with programming.
Most comp. sci. departments are offspring of maths departments, not
engineering. These mathematicians have steadily corrupted what comp. sci.
is until, (at least as far as software is concerned), it has stopped being
the engineering discipline it once was and become an excuse for lecturing
maths (CSP, Hoare proof rules, loop invariants, preconditions, bullshit
bullshit bullshit incapplicable totally OTT bullshit) at the undergraduate
level, and an excuse for cutting down rainforests to generate huge numbers of
unread articles in obscure journals at the research level.
	These academic theoretcial computer scientists (*what* a contradiction
in terms that is) have keyboard phobia so strong that liberal arts students
approach computers with less nervous jitter. The last time any of them ever
wrote a program was some three line piece of PASCAL requiring 1000 sheets
of incomprehensible A4 to formally prove. Ask them what a device driver is
for and they gawp...

>>
>>> 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...

	That is such complete unutterable nonsense that I am almost
lost for words... I could take an average comp. sci. class and turn them
into professional kernel jockeys in *two* years of standard university
course, capable of tackling production software in a commercial environment,
with skills in C, UNIX, etc, etc. without ONCE MENTIONING TURING MACHINES.
BUT comp. sci. departments *DON'T DO THIS*, despite the fact that they
should.
	There is definitely room for a programming department, but if it's
got to have a parent for gods sake give it to Elec Eng, since at least
they're engineers and know what "manufacturing" actually means.
>
>>> 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.

	Well I must disagree here, Dan. The art in traditional engineering
maybe less obvious but it's there just as much as it is in programming.
However except for people doing cutting edge research, intrinsic ability
isn't necessary - the skills *can* be taught. It's just that at the moment
they're not being taught by anyone, least of all the bunch of misguided
mathematicians/bureaucrats who staff most comp. sci. departments.

	-Huw

[ H.J.Rogers  INTERNET: huw@ccs.mt.nec.co.jp                       ]
[    ,_,      JANET: huw%ccs.mt.nec.co.jp@uk.ac.nsfnet-relay       ]
[  :-(_)-o   "Either code it for speed, or don't code it at all."  ]
[   _} {_    "I'll be back..."                                     ]

[          THIS EMAIL ADDRESS ONLY VALID UNTIL 12/9/1991           ]