🚀 go-pugleaf

sdwhitel@socs.uts.edu.au (92075151 s d whiteley) writes:

 >mddeitch@socs.uts.edu.au (Mark Deitch)) writes:
 >
 >>  Yes, these are all assumptions based on the fact that the graduate will
 >>  graduate wishing to be some boring infidel, who wishes to become a 
 >>  software maintainer in some sector of the business community. Whixh, I am gl
 >>  to announce is what the highly credible but totally languid Information
 >>  Technology course prepares a person for. Let us be of the assumption that
 >
 >Hey! I dont recall making a distinction between the CS and Info Tech, just 
 >a general observation based on the content of first year subjects. Which,
 >suprisingly, are remarkedly similar. But since you brought it up.. The 
 >info Tech course is *NOT* aimed at producing such "infidels" as you put it,
 >but rather aimed at getting the graduate out of maintenance and into higher
 >management positions ASAP

No, Mark brought that (valid) distinction up.  The courses are very different.  The
first semester was nearly the same, but then the BITs have gone off and kludged
COBOL for months while we have continued learning new things.

While getting into management really tightens my balls (sorry just had to), whether
or not the BIT course achieves that better than Comp Sci (or indeed, well at all),
or if it just produces a horde of COBOL drones is yet to be proved to my satisfaction.
Still, what could be more exciting than not only programming COBOl, but mananging a
whole COBOL-using department!!!!

 >
 >>  there are actually Human Beings within our degree who do not wish to
 >>  be old lameys sitting up in big offices, under fluroescent lights,
 >>  staring at green monitors filled with lines of Cobol which do
 >>  screwy things like accounts processing etc. Perhaps under this
 >>  assumption, the notion that people may wish to get into research
 >>  areas of computing or into the COmputer graphics side of computing may
 >>  evolve. IF this is the case, which I know it is for me, as I wish
 >>  to get into the Graphics side of Computer development, or the Artificial Intelligence
 >>  and even Virtual Reality :), then what the f*!k use is Cobol? What the
 >>  f*!k use is Accounting Fundamentals? 
 >
 >Concepts! By the time we have finished our courses most of what we have
 >learnt about ENVIRONMENT DIVISIONS etc would have been forgotten. BUT NOT
 >the way in which we dealt with learning these new languages. The way we
 >tackled the problems we are given (However unrelated to industry these problems
 >may seem).  These tools will stay with us.

I hope not.  The soi-disant 'techniques of COBOL' are really just hacks to get
around the amazing inefficiencies of that language.  The best thing to do 
would be to forget them and learn some real structured design.  

 >
 >First year core subjects will not give us the experience to become experienced
 >programmers, analysts, developers or whatever, *no matter* what courses or
 >strands they follow.

Strange... let us look back at the corridors of flame, to the original Sean-post:

- >But what are the universities doing about it?? NOTHING! UTS prides itself
- >on being the most up-to-date with industry.. although where in the
- >CS course are PCs? Perhaps later in electives, but nothing in first year
- >subjects at all! A student could tell me how to (theoritically) design
- >an Accounts Receivable system with pretty DFDs and ER diagrams.. but ask
- >them how to write a Windows application, or any application, and most would
- >be lost for words....

So what exactly are you suggesting?

 > I didnt say that the course structure is perfect. In fact,
 >it leaves alot to be desired. And hey I cant tell you how it should be either!

So what was the point?  Just a general whinge??  If you complain about 
something, you should really suggest alternatives, you know.

 >What might be ideal would be to let the students choose *all* their subjects.
 >But this is totally impractical in todays climate. (For exhibit one I present:
 >Government Funding! Ummm.... geee I cant seem to find it your Honour!)

I take it back.  Don't make a suggestion!!  

Having complete freedom is useless, as 1st green-horn tenderfeet schoolies have
no idea at all about what they want to do.  They haven't even assimilated the
university environment.  Give 'em a chance to settle down first.

 >
 >So what is the use of Cobol? To give us *some* experience in programming,
 >problem solving techniques etc. Hey its a awkward language... but look on 
 >the bright side: If we can code solutions in Cobol then shouldnt it make
 >us better problem solvers and coders in your so called "easy languages"
 >If we can learn the hardest language.. then all the languages after this should
 >be a snap to learn! Perhaps Cobol isnt a hard language....

No no no!  It doesn't work that way!  Thought and expression are inextricably (sfs)
linked!  It is much better to build your ideas on a sensible, consistent well
thought out platform.  All you get from COBOL are a load of bad habits.

 >
 >And what of Accounting Fundamentals? Easy. Its hard to see this in University
 >but *everything* you do in industry HAS to be financially justified. You 
 >might have a brilliant idea that will revoulutionise the way everyone thinks
 >about graphics or whatever, BUT if you cant show that its going to make money
 >then it is worth nothing! AF may have been really simple... BUT it gave us
 >a little understanding... or dare I say it.. "tools" in which we can build
 >on later in the course. Two regional development centres in Sinapore and
 >Hong Kong were recently axed at the company I work for.. simply because
 >they were not justifiable in todays climate. 32 top analysts and programmers
 >made redundant .. just like that.. That could have been your project if you
 >didnt have the tools to justify it.
 >
 >
 >>  They are both based around a business/computing degree, and therefore
 >>  should be electives in a supposed Computer Science degree. Admittedely
 >
 >Business is computing.. computing is business.. who is going to be funding
 >these projects of yours? Business. You cant separatecomputing and business,
 >as nice as it would be. True, all I wanted to do when I started this course
 >was to work with computers and *only* computers... Seemingly unrelated
 >subjects bored me.. Real world dont work that way.

What a load of shit.  Business =/= computing at all.  There are many areas of
computing having very little to do with business.  (In fact the major funder
of all computing is USA military's DARPA isn't it?  Whether or not that
is a business, is left for another day :^).  You are confusing your course
for the whole of computing.  Your narrow course aims you right for business,
I agree, but the whole point Mark (and the rest of us) are making is that
ours shouldn't and doesn't have to.  Pure computing is really applied (and
not so applied) mathematics.

 >>  UTS are more on the Ball than other Universities, who demand that their
 >>  students do science subjects !, But let the Business related subjects be part of
 >>  a Business elective strand, and keep the actual computing elements in 
 >>  the core, that way people can learn about the computing in the core,
 >>  and decide which field they wish to specialise in in the electives.
 >
 >Hmm.. this again leads back to the idea of letting students choose exactly
 >what they want to do from 1st year onwards. Could you have chosen what subjects
 >you wanted to do late last year? Did you have any idea what strands you wanted
 >to follow from day -90, when you would have had to specify your electives for
 >first year? I know - it seemed all that was important was that you were doing
 >Computer Science.

Ahh, but then we started COBOL - and Computer Science fell from the pedestal.

 >
 >>  It seems that all people need, nowadays is Cobol if they want to become
 >>  industrial programmer, and if Sean is correct and they are not going to implement
 >
 >Ahhh no - otherwise there would be 6 month intensive Cobol courses and a damn
 >lot of industrial programmers out there.. Nope.. you need more than Cobol to
 >be an industrial programmer
 >

Yes, there is definately a certain mind set.

 >>  anything upgraded for at least 10 years, then let them be. I believe for
 >>  an almost certain fact that the Graphics industry is on the verge of 
 >>  a boom in Australia, I have spoken to an Image enhancement agency, who
 >>  has direct support from Apple Computer, and it seems that, from his
 >>  accounts to me, that society is totally ignorant to the potential
 >>  of graphics in a business environment, and within the advertising
 >>  circles. So when people start becoming aware, the demand for Graphics
 >>  software programmers and system consultants will be awesome. r
 >
 >Then hey! Get a job with this guy! No shit if I could find someone in
 >industry that would be prepared to train me from square one to work in any
 >of the boom (or about to boom) areas of industry then Id be thinking
 >seriously about where I should be - especially if I had atleast a ten
 >year guarenteed work contract. But unfortunatly noone in industry can, or
 >is willing, to make those promises.

The preceeding comment has really revealed some underlying attitudes now,
hasn't it?  What Sean is saying is 'If you want COBOL, go to Uni.  If you
want an interesting job, (which you can't get), you have to ask someone
to train you, pay for it, and keep you for ten years'.  Why can't Mark
expect to get top-quality training in this area from UTS??  'TECHNOLOGY'
doesn't just mean 'Ancient batch-processed useless boring shit' you know.

 > Having a degree gets a foot in the 
 >door.. (quoting a recent movie..) what you do after that is up to you. If
 >you can get your foot in without a degree then what are you doing here?
 >

Look again, Elvy.  He didn't say that.  He is trying to get a degree which
will make him 'learn' something... you know 'learn', don't you? 

 >
 >>  Computing Science, should promote COMPUTING concepts, if we wish to
 >>  use these concepts to continue into the business element then that should
 >>  be our decision.!
 >>  >        
 >
 >For sure! But Business *IS* a computing concept isnt it???? Im not saying 
 >at any time that the structure of either courses is adequate... perhaps
 >there are parts that should be there and arent, and parts that are there
 >and shouldnt be.
 >
 >I was very suprised that you didnt pick up on my theme on PC's.. the 
 >profileration of such graphics houses is primarily due to the humble
 >PC.
 >
 >Why ISNT there ANY subject material on the PC? Sure CSA shows us *how*
 >these machines work.. but no-where are are we shown what PCs can do!
 >

There is much scope for working on PCs in the Comp Sci course.  Unfortunately
for you, these electives aren't available.  I guess you sold your soul for
$9,500 a year and now you're pissed off.
P

 >Now there is a full-on computing concept.. Computer Systems Architecture..
 >that perhaps should not be a core subject.. since perhaps 90% of students
 >couldnt give a damn how it works. Who really cares how a NAND gate works?
 >The only real relavance I see is the Assembly Language taught... but even
 >that language is being killed off at the hands of other languages such
 >as C.
 >
 >Ahh now there is a language that *should* taught.. And get C++ and we have
 >all the object orientated concepts we need! Plus learning a language
 >that is fully usable on PCs, and is gaining popularity in mainframe 
 >enviroments..
 >
 >Hear us oh wise and all-knowing course designers... WE WANT C! :)
 >
 >(even you Mark should be happy at that.. since C is one of the primary
 >languages used in graphic development :)
 >

Yes, graphics and c can be done at this Uni.  Perhaps you should look at what
is offered before you complain about it.

 >--
 >Sean Whiteley -- sdwhitel@socs.uts.edu.au
 >** What is the original assumption?    **
 >

What is the point?


	- Ryan
  I went to comp.ai and all I got was this lousy .sig virus