🚀 go-pugleaf

Dan, Dan, Dan,
 this appears to have become a flame war when it wasn't intended to
be...

In article <15046.Jul2320.03.1391@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>I had a lot of trouble reading the above-referenced article by John
>Burton until I realized what was getting me confused. Namely: Burton
>assumes that ``computer science'' and ``programming'' are the same
>subject, or at least that the former contains the latter. Hardly. As
                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
very good...you got my point!
            
>many computer scientists have assured me, the topics covered by (for
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh? does this mean you're not one?

>instance) Knuth's Art of Computer Programming are quite different from
>the topics of importance in computer science. I think it is Burton who
>is confused.

Dan,
  have you actually *read* Knuth's Art of computer programming? if
not, let me list the contents for you...the CS course that is offered
in that particular area is enclosed in parens...

1. Basic Concepts - mathematical preliminaries (Discrete Math)
2. Information Structures - stacks,queues,lists,arrays (Data
                            Structures)
3. Random Numbers - (Discrete Event Simulation)
4. Arithmetic - (Discrete Math)
5. Sorting - (Data Structures, Analysis of Algorithms, Database)
6. Searching - (Data Structures, Analysis of Algorithms, Database)
7. Combinatorial Searching - (Analysis of Algorithms)
8. Recursion - (Data Structures, Intro to Programming)
9. Lexical Scanning - (Compiler Construction)
10. Parsing - (Compiler Construction)
11. Mathematical Linguistics - (Semantics of Programming Languages, 
                                Theory of Programming Languages)
12. Programming Language Translation - (Compiler Construction,
                                        Semantics of P.L.,
                                        Theory of P.L)

The only courses that are NOT taught at an undergraduate level are
Semantics of PL and Theory of PL.

Perhaps you should ask your "computer scientist" friends where *they*
went to school.


>``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.

>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?
Lets see...ten-year-old...hmmm...I recall building houses, bridges,
entire towns with my lego and tinker-toy sets...I was even playing
with my chemistry set, tearing my bike apart AND putting it back
together again so it works...nope, guess it doesn't show an early
aptitude for mechanics or engineering or science.

>There is your confusion. I did not say computer science; I said
>programming. The two fields are quite different. As Jacob Gore pointed
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
not really...read on...

>out: ``There are plenty of CS Ph.D.'s that would kill Superman if they
>were allowed to program an X-ray machine.''

there are also a lot of "musicians who can't carry a tune to save
their lives...so what does it prove?

>
>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).

getting a degree in music is like getting a degree in
computer science (BROAD FIELD), getting a degree in piano 
is like getting a degree in programming (PART of BROAD FIELD)
i.e piano is a subset of music, programming is a subset of computer
science.

>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.
>

Very, good!!! I play the piano, and I play the trumpet, and I play the
guitar, but I don't consider myself a musician. I have the mechanics
of playing down, but I don't have the gift that makes a great musician
only a small percentage of the population have that gift...

>
>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

not to mention teach them some of the theory behind music...

>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"...

>
>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..."), Computer
Science IS THE BASIS for programming! As far as mathematics and
programming? how about a quote from *your* friend Donald Knuth (from
"the Art of COmputer Programming" vol.1)

"...I wish to show that the connection between computers and
mathematics is far deeper and more intimate than these tradition
relationships would imply..."

>
>Yes, it is. Programming is quite different from scientific professions.
>It is an art.
>
Nope, programming is no different than most other professions...

>There's your confusion again. Programming is not computer science!

Very good! programming IS NOT computer science, programming IS A PART
of computer science.
>
>Yes. Maybe you should try to accept that I meant to say what I did. A
>typical computer science department does *not* teach programming,
>although many good programmers may be forced into that department (and
>forced to learn lots of completely irrelevant material) because no

could you name some irrelevant material that is taught in computer
science that would NEVER be used by a programmer in the real world?
(now remember, colleges and universities teach *general*, NOT for 
a specific job)

Dan, 
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. Testing in
reference toward licensing looks at knowledge of the "mechanics", it
has nothing to do with the art. Many people in a field know the
mechanics of the field, few have the "gift" to transform it into an
"art". Einstein knew the mechanics of his field, but he also had a
"gift" that transformed it into an "art". Godel knew the mechanics of
mathematics, but he also had the "gift" to transform it into an
"artform". Escher knew the mechanics of drawing, but he had a "gift"
to elevate it into an "art". Bach knew the mechanics of music, but he
also had the "gift" to make it art. Frank Loyd Wright knew the
mechanics of architecture, but he also had a "gift" to turn it into an
artform. 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", just as the
purpose of a degree in music is to get the person to understand the
underlying concepts behind music, AND to train this "gift". The same
is true for hairstylists, bakers, mathematician, physists, engineers,
architects, doctors, lawyers, medicine men, carpenters. Regardless of
the field, The thing that separates the competent from the great is 
this "gift".

You mentioned that I thought licensing of musicians would be good? not
really, if the musician does not know the mechanics of the field, its
immediately apparent. If a programmer doesn't know the mechanics of
his field, you might not know it until the plane crashes...

No, programming is no more a form of art than is any other field.


John

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| John Burton                                                        |
| G & A Technical Software                                           |
| jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov                                       |
| burton@asdsun.larc.nasa.gov                                        |
| jcburt@cs.wm.edu                                                   |
|                                                                    |
| Disclaimer: Hey, what can I say...These are *my* views, not those  |
|             of anyone else, be they employer, school, or government|
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+