🚀 go-pugleaf

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?

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

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...

> >``Fine, who would WANT a degree in MUSIC ? Music is a small portion of
> >the field of signal processing.'' Yes, Burton, only a fraction of the
> >science of digital processing has any bearing on music. Yet music is a
> Sorry, signal processin and music *do* share only a small portion of
> their respective fields, i.e. the area of digitally
> produced/recorded/modified music.

``Sorry?'' You are agreeing with my analogy. Music and signal processing
are only partially related. Similarly, programming and computer science
are only partially related. In neither case is one field a subset of the
other.

  [ chopped quote about music: ]
> >vibrant art, with hobbyists and serious practitioners and a high level
> >of creativity. There are lots of programmer hobbyists too---young ones,
> >especially, who've discovered their love for programming at an early
> >age. Where are the mechanical engineering hobbyists? Where are the
> >architecture hobbyists? Where are the doctor hobbyists? Do you see
> >ten-year-olds with an aptitude for the law? Or computer science?
> Oh, I don't know, I guess you assume that the back yard mechanic or
> hot-rodder is *not* a mechanical engineering hobbyist?

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. 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.

> >Ah, yes, and getting a degree in music would be the same as getting a
> >degree in playing the piano, eh? You seem to have a very limited idea of
> try again...(this time go back and really READ what I said).

Once again you chopped my quote. I was making an analogy to your idiotic
claim that ``getting a degree in programming would be the same as
getting a degree in mechanical drawing.'' The latter is a physical
(hand-eye) skill, just as piano playing is a physical skill. Programming
and music are not mere physical skills.

> getting a degree in music is like getting a degree in
> computer science (BROAD FIELD),

That's an absolutely, totally ridiculous analogy, and I don't like how
you're using your chopped quotes to pretend that I said such things.

> >what's involved in programming. Sure, learning to play the piano is a
> >mechanical skill, learned mostly by practice. That doesn't turn
> >competent piano players into musicians.
  [ agreement ]

Fine. I'm glad you agree that learning to play the piano doesn't turn
you into a musician. So do you retract your statement that getting a
degree in programming is like getting a degree in mechanical drawing?

> >Be serious. You can teach someone how to play the piano, and you can
> >teach someone how to make the computer do his bidding. That's a far cry
> >from teaching someone how to create inspiring music or an inspiring
> >program. The best way we know to teach someone to write beautiful music
> >is to show him beautiful music of the past and help him understand their
> >differences and similarities, meanwhile making sure that the necessary
> >mundane skills develop. Exactly the same is true of programming:
> >programmers learn by seeing the works of others, meanwhile exercising
> >their skills by writing new programs. This is not true of engineering
> >fields: you really can produce a competent mechanical engineer who has
> >never seen or dissected great works of mechanical engineering in the
> >past, who may have created works of his own but was only applying the
> >principles he was taught without that spark of creativity at every step.
> A competent musician can create an "adeguate" song by only applying
> what he was taught, without a single spark of creativity...it would
> probably be boring, but, its "music"...

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.

> >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
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.

> >There's your confusion again. Programming is not computer science!
> Very good! programming IS NOT computer science, programming IS A PART
> of computer science.

Back to the analogy you agreed with: Do you claim that physics IS A PART
of mathematics? Or that programming IS A PART of mathematics? If not,
you're contradicting yourself once again.

> 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.

> 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.

> Programming is the same thing,
> many know the mechanics of programming, but few have the "gift" to
> transform it into an "art". The purpose of Computer Science is to
> understand computers AND to help train this "gift",

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?

---Dan