Code != computer science(ultrasaurus.com)
ultrasaurus.com
Code != computer science
http://www.ultrasaurus.com/2013/12/code-computer-science/
147 comments
I think coding is neither science nor engineering. I like the term "craft" much better.
I think people are falsely equating computer science with software engineering. You can get a very strong theoretical basis for programming at a place like Stanford, and the work you can do may have nothing to do with best practices but rather a lot to do with more abstract concepts like algorithmic efficiency or graph analysis or what not. As a Stanford student personally Ive learned a lot more about best practices in software systems outside of the university; in fact you get very little of that from classes. What you do get is in depth coverage of topics that most are unlikely to get a formal treatment of on their own, depending on your concentration, whether that means cutting edge operating systems and compilers research, or rigorous discussion of the psychology behind ux design. Hope that clarifies a bit!
Plus, there are some things that I don't believe can be taught effectively in college. Stanford told me tests were good, but I didn't really believe it until I had to work on a legacy codebase without tests.
Best practices are easier to digest when you've experienced the problem they're meant to solve.
Best practices are easier to digest when you've experienced the problem they're meant to solve.
People in academia simply don't care about the quality of one particular implementation of their ideas. There's no value judgement here, it's just not their job to write and maintain good software. Just as it's not a mathematician's job to maintain a cryptographic protocol or a physicist's job to keep a satellite in orbit. The people who went to schools with strong research programs are trained by people in that mindset.
It's a simple question of motivation. If they're brilliant and they have motivation, then of course they could write great software. They just don't.
Make no mistake, people from schools like Cal Poly SLO (a state school, and my alma mater) who excelled in their CS programs can software engineer circles around most. Why? Because Cal Poly has no research program, three quarters of their faculty come from industry, and their faculty have no job requirements outside of teaching. They literally had us managing five to ten thousand line software projects with teams of students in year two.
It's a simple question of motivation. If they're brilliant and they have motivation, then of course they could write great software. They just don't.
Make no mistake, people from schools like Cal Poly SLO (a state school, and my alma mater) who excelled in their CS programs can software engineer circles around most. Why? Because Cal Poly has no research program, three quarters of their faculty come from industry, and their faculty have no job requirements outside of teaching. They literally had us managing five to ten thousand line software projects with teams of students in year two.
While I'm following you ideologically, I'm not sure that this idea bears fruit in evidence. The computer science community still uses large numbers of algorithms (via libraries) that were written by academics, in peer-reviewed journals, in Fortran, in the 1970s.
Even currently, a tremendous amount of the cutting-edge work in optimization and others is done at the university level: METIS for graph partitioning, and convex optimization work being done by Stephen Boyd et al. They care deeply about the implementation because quality and speed of solution are of utmost importance. A number (like Geoffrey Hinton and Sebastian Thrun) have moved into the private sector, but after contributing a lot via academia.
Even currently, a tremendous amount of the cutting-edge work in optimization and others is done at the university level: METIS for graph partitioning, and convex optimization work being done by Stephen Boyd et al. They care deeply about the implementation because quality and speed of solution are of utmost importance. A number (like Geoffrey Hinton and Sebastian Thrun) have moved into the private sector, but after contributing a lot via academia.
I thing the problem here is you're comparing apples to oranges - the people writing code in the 70's are not the same type of people teaching students to code now.
In the 70's it would have been physicists, mathematicians or engineers writing code to solve a problem for them and their colleagues. Their code needed to be maintainable so they could share it in their academic community, and get things done with it.
Today, the people teaching computer science view code as the proof of concept. Much of the work is in the idea behind the code, and the code is just proof that it can be implemented in practice - and most importantly, isn't designed to be actually used.
The idea that the code is just the proof of concept then carries over to the students, and the mindset becomes not, "let's build this thing to do X', but "can we build a thing, in way Y to do X".
In the 70's it would have been physicists, mathematicians or engineers writing code to solve a problem for them and their colleagues. Their code needed to be maintainable so they could share it in their academic community, and get things done with it.
Today, the people teaching computer science view code as the proof of concept. Much of the work is in the idea behind the code, and the code is just proof that it can be implemented in practice - and most importantly, isn't designed to be actually used.
The idea that the code is just the proof of concept then carries over to the students, and the mindset becomes not, "let's build this thing to do X', but "can we build a thing, in way Y to do X".
Have you ever seen Hinton's code before? It's all Matlab :) And when you are designing/prototyping algorithms, that is quite good enough.
That last bit sounds amazing and highly valuable. I go to a well regarded top CS school and I regret that we don't have something like that in our curriculum that forces people to write multi-thousand-lines of code with a team and maintain it.
Our EE program has something like that where you choose a team and build something with them over the course of a semester while having an "advisor". At the end you make a report and present it to the advisor and the rest of the committee. It's a requirement for graduation. I think that's awesome and CS definitely needs something akin to that.
Our EE program has something like that where you choose a team and build something with them over the course of a semester while having an "advisor". At the end you make a report and present it to the advisor and the rest of the committee. It's a requirement for graduation. I think that's awesome and CS definitely needs something akin to that.
Science != engineering.
Engineers take what scientists discover and create and design solutions based on that. Computer science is not about engineering a large software solution. Rather it's about discovering and creating algorithms and techniques that engineers can use to design solutions.
Much of the comments to this article seem to be happy to mix the roles of "technician", "engineer", and "scientist" when they are in fact very, very different.
Engineers take what scientists discover and create and design solutions based on that. Computer science is not about engineering a large software solution. Rather it's about discovering and creating algorithms and techniques that engineers can use to design solutions.
Much of the comments to this article seem to be happy to mix the roles of "technician", "engineer", and "scientist" when they are in fact very, very different.
Your definition of engineering may have been appropriate around the time of the industrial revolution when an engineer was literally one who built steam engines, but modern engineering in the academic sense under discussion here is absolutely a science.
Wikipedia describes "computer science" as an umbrella term covering everything pertaining to software development and algorithmic thought. Academic computer science programs generally offer courses in both the theoretical and the applied.
Even the very term itself has often been described as a misnomer, not necessarily having anything to do with "computers" or with "science".
I think the reason people mix such things around so much is because what "computer science" is has been ambiguously defined all along.
Even the very term itself has often been described as a misnomer, not necessarily having anything to do with "computers" or with "science".
I think the reason people mix such things around so much is because what "computer science" is has been ambiguously defined all along.
The truth is, CS is not a "science" like biology or physics.
It is an education in understanding computation and software development.
I'd also argue it is not an engineering discipline either. It's unfortunate the terms "Computer Science" and "Software Engineering" were ever accepted. They're holding us back; we're stuck in an outdated view of the subject.
It is an education in understanding computation and software development.
I'd also argue it is not an engineering discipline either. It's unfortunate the terms "Computer Science" and "Software Engineering" were ever accepted. They're holding us back; we're stuck in an outdated view of the subject.
I kindof disagree. For example while studying UML, it became more and more apparent to me how legitimate it is to have the word "science" in "Computer Science". Being able to create a high-level framework that is general enough to apply pervasively to IT systems is not a trivial matter, and requires considerable academic effort and creativity. The domain may be different from biology or physics, but the methods of obtaining that"understanding" you mention are strikingly similar (which accounts for the reliability of the results that are delivered).
Wait, did you just bring up UML as an example for backing up the claim that CS is science?!
I know UML is not very popular, but as you can see, I thought it was interesting.
In science, understanding is developed through abstract mathematics and empirical experimentation.
Whilst UML is an abstraction language, I would hesitate to compare it to a mathematical calculus. Regardless, we do not subsequently carry out empirical experimentation in the same way as science does. There is no "ground truth" that UML is modelling when developing software (ignoring edge cases) - it's a design tool.
Whilst UML is an abstraction language, I would hesitate to compare it to a mathematical calculus. Regardless, we do not subsequently carry out empirical experimentation in the same way as science does. There is no "ground truth" that UML is modelling when developing software (ignoring edge cases) - it's a design tool.
[deleted]
They had to study existing software (empirical), and then find an understanding of what is essential and common to all cases.
The result was that a finite and compact set of concepts could be used to account completely for almost any design architecture, past or future. To me, this is pretty scientific.
The result was that a finite and compact set of concepts could be used to account completely for almost any design architecture, past or future. To me, this is pretty scientific.
There are certain aspects of engineering which are definitely science. Science really is just the production of new knowledge with hard facts.
Engineers are Scientists with thumbs was what I was told when I worked for a RnD organization on CIT's campus.
The corollary to that is "but the technician is the one who really understands it :-) "
The corollary to that is "but the technician is the one who really understands it :-) "
My job as a software engineer involves a mix of all these things. Not a lot of heavy algorithm development, but definitely some.
Engineering utilizes science. But not many engineers need to know as much as Knuth.
Hm that's a fair point.
Depends on the course.
I studied a bachelors in molecular biology, took a few years out (realised I didn't like the subject much) and studied a one years masters in IT a few years later. It was taught by the Computer Science department (Glasgow University in Scotland), but the focus was on writing good quality software - readable, maintainable, usable code.
There was an optional data structures and algorithms course which I assume is more geared towards traditional comp science. I took it, but in ten years of work, I rarely use this stuff (though its good to have a background so you know which library is a better choice).
One thing they didn't teach us was networkinq, which I am completely self taught. I can get stuff working, but I think having a formal education in things (like I do in OOP) can teach you where to focus to get things done in a professional manner.
I studied a bachelors in molecular biology, took a few years out (realised I didn't like the subject much) and studied a one years masters in IT a few years later. It was taught by the Computer Science department (Glasgow University in Scotland), but the focus was on writing good quality software - readable, maintainable, usable code.
There was an optional data structures and algorithms course which I assume is more geared towards traditional comp science. I took it, but in ten years of work, I rarely use this stuff (though its good to have a background so you know which library is a better choice).
One thing they didn't teach us was networkinq, which I am completely self taught. I can get stuff working, but I think having a formal education in things (like I do in OOP) can teach you where to focus to get things done in a professional manner.
"If you hire too many computer scientists, your code base could be full of fascinating technical tricks, but creaky and hard to work with. Too many craftsmen, and you'll get stuck on simple problems. It's a balance."
Your whole post is full over hand waving and overgeneralization. You've never met a CS major who wrote clean code without resorting to fascinating technical tricks? You haven't met a non-CS major who did his or her due diligence to learn the mathematical fundamentals?
Please cut the hyperbole.
Your whole post is full over hand waving and overgeneralization. You've never met a CS major who wrote clean code without resorting to fascinating technical tricks? You haven't met a non-CS major who did his or her due diligence to learn the mathematical fundamentals?
Please cut the hyperbole.
What do you expect? We're talking about someone sharing their personal experience, not their 5 year double blind statistically rigorous study. Take it for what it is. I expect HN to be full of people who can take information in, with a critical eye, without wasting time quibbling over quality. We know the quality of the information source (he states it at the head of the comment!), we don't have to rehash the basics, science, and sources of evidence for every comment do we?
Just my opinion, and I don't have much experience. I'm sorry if it offended you for any reason.
Also maybe some other reasons for downvotes:
- 1.5 years experience isn't very much to base an opinion like this on
- Finding other people's code hard to read is pretty common, no matter how good those coder's are. Your own code generally makes perfect sense to you, same as your writing. But communicating so that all can understand it is hard. That's why flame wars occur. You probably think your comment is a reasonably argued piece of writing, just like you think your code is nicely refactored and understandable. The fact that people disagree and downvote proves the point I think.
- 1.5 years experience isn't very much to base an opinion like this on
- Finding other people's code hard to read is pretty common, no matter how good those coder's are. Your own code generally makes perfect sense to you, same as your writing. But communicating so that all can understand it is hard. That's why flame wars occur. You probably think your comment is a reasonably argued piece of writing, just like you think your code is nicely refactored and understandable. The fact that people disagree and downvote proves the point I think.
And when you've been writing code for decades, it becomes quite evident that "those other people" can easily be your past selves.
> I look at this from the other side as well. I've worked with brilliant people with ivy league CS degrees who wrote much messier and less maintainable code than me, an autodidact designer/js dev with 1.5 years of experience.
Be careful, everybody writes worse code than you, because you wrote the code. And these is a difference in writing nice simple code, and rewriting the same function to work on a bunch of different machines that does the core of the application, and you have until the end of the week until it goes live.
Be careful, everybody writes worse code than you, because you wrote the code. And these is a difference in writing nice simple code, and rewriting the same function to work on a bunch of different machines that does the core of the application, and you have until the end of the week until it goes live.
It also makes you more successful in life if you learn to delegate work to other people, it clears your mind for a moment of brilliance and you can take all the credit when they are done with their labor. If life were fair our jobs would let us grow like in academia and but this is not the case in industry.
> I look at this from the other side as well. I've worked with brilliant people with ivy league CS degrees who wrote much messier and less maintainable code than me, an autodidact designer/js dev with 1.5 years of experience. Maybe I'm wrong, and there was something in their code that I wasn't seeing, but I don't think so.
I would have ignored your comment were it not for you mentioning that you write javascript. I started learning it on and off a few weeks ago, and yesterday I installed spidermonkey as a standalone shell. What I have noticed is that a lot of the syntax that controls flow is very similar to C, which is notorious for being gibberish. I'm guessing the same will apply to js. I do not have a CS degree, but would you say that this is readable? This is a function for extraction of nodes in a double linked list that I am currently kicking into shape.
Writing convoluted code is more to do with a certain state of mind. You should ask your coworkers where they obtain LSD, not where they got their degree. I haven't come across any acid for about a dozen years, I think it has gone out of fashion.
Of course if this was Perl it would be even worse.
I would have ignored your comment were it not for you mentioning that you write javascript. I started learning it on and off a few weeks ago, and yesterday I installed spidermonkey as a standalone shell. What I have noticed is that a lot of the syntax that controls flow is very similar to C, which is notorious for being gibberish. I'm guessing the same will apply to js. I do not have a CS degree, but would you say that this is readable? This is a function for extraction of nodes in a double linked list that I am currently kicking into shape.
/*
* extract *p__ from p__.
* but original *p__ is shifted left or right \
* if there is still space.
* extracted ndi* is returned, but the remainder of the list \
* is sewn back up.
*/
ndi *extract_ndi(ndi **p__, const int dec) {
ndi *q_=*p__;
if(dec>=_PREV_) {
*p__=*(q_->lnk+dec); /* the shift */
if(*((*p__)->lnk+!dec)=*(q_->lnk+!dec)) { /* sew up */
*((*(q_->lnk+!dec))->lnk+dec)=*p__;
*(q_->lnk+!dec)=NULL; /* burn ends of extraction */
}
*(q_->lnk+dec)=NULL;
} else if(dec==_LONE_) /* final possibility is that *p__==NULL */
*p__=NULL; /* ie. dec==_DEAD_, no which ain't it not worth man */
return q_;
}
Writing convoluted code is more to do with a certain state of mind. You should ask your coworkers where they obtain LSD, not where they got their degree. I haven't come across any acid for about a dozen years, I think it has gone out of fashion.
Of course if this was Perl it would be even worse.
> What the hell was I smoking when I wrote this? I can't even read it myself.
It's what you get for being lazy (non judging here, I'm guilty of it too) and not naming your variables accordingly. When you write the code you probably know what ndi, q, p, lnk, etc. are supposed to mean. But then you leave the code for some time and when you return you are lost. Just write out variable and function names so that your code reads like english - programming Obj-C for some time really helped me there :)
And with pointer-heavy code I tend to create aliases for offsets so I don't have to write out things like *(q->lnk+!dec) every time I reference that specific address.
Yes, maybe it will cost me wizard points with colleagues because they start to understand my code but my sanity is it worth to me ;)
(Also trailing/leading underscores are the devil!)
It's what you get for being lazy (non judging here, I'm guilty of it too) and not naming your variables accordingly. When you write the code you probably know what ndi, q, p, lnk, etc. are supposed to mean. But then you leave the code for some time and when you return you are lost. Just write out variable and function names so that your code reads like english - programming Obj-C for some time really helped me there :)
And with pointer-heavy code I tend to create aliases for offsets so I don't have to write out things like *(q->lnk+!dec) every time I reference that specific address.
Yes, maybe it will cost me wizard points with colleagues because they start to understand my code but my sanity is it worth to me ;)
(Also trailing/leading underscores are the devil!)
I'll confess, it is deliberately obfuscated. *(q->lnk+!dec) and the like were originally written in macro.
> Of course if this was Perl it would be even worse.
Sigh. Sadly, it has become fashionable to bring up Perl only to ridicule it even when there is absolutely no context or need.
Take a look at this implementation [1] of doubly linked list in Perl. Tell me how that is worse [2].
Now, I will go back to my corner to being productive using Perl or whatever language I need.
[1] https://metacpan.org/source/LEONT/List-DoubleLinked-0.003/li...
[2] Of course, I have no way of knowing if it is an exact or even close translation of your code, but it does implement doubly linked lists.
Sigh. Sadly, it has become fashionable to bring up Perl only to ridicule it even when there is absolutely no context or need.
Take a look at this implementation [1] of doubly linked list in Perl. Tell me how that is worse [2].
Now, I will go back to my corner to being productive using Perl or whatever language I need.
[1] https://metacpan.org/source/LEONT/List-DoubleLinked-0.003/li...
[2] Of course, I have no way of knowing if it is an exact or even close translation of your code, but it does implement doubly linked lists.
> Sigh. Sadly, it has become fashionable to bring up Perl only to ridicule it even when there is absolutely no context or need.
A lot of people ridicule C, I just laugh my head off.
Apologies, I assure you that I am not ridiculing it. The elegance of a language is not my concern. In fact, your comment has made me decide to put some effort into learning a bit more Perl, but I will have to find some time.
A lot of people ridicule C, I just laugh my head off.
Apologies, I assure you that I am not ridiculing it. The elegance of a language is not my concern. In fact, your comment has made me decide to put some effort into learning a bit more Perl, but I will have to find some time.
What I find when I work with "pointy" data structures is that it really, really helps to draw diagrams to clarify your thinking. I can write a doubly-linked list extraction with my eyes closed (and it'd probably help to do it with closed eyes, since I can more easily picture what's going on) but it very likely won't look anything like yours... what's dec for? And all the extraneous underscores in the variable names, I don't see why you need them. What's wrong with p and p?
Drawing diagrams is one of the most useful teaching strategies I've found when people are just starting to learn pointers. I've TA'd a course that introduces students to C++, pointers, and basic data structures, and after five semesters, I'd say that it's the single most helpful thing I've found when they are first trying to wrestle with pointers. (They get to implement a doubly linked list.)
One underscore indicates a pointer, two indicates a pointer to pointer.
The code was a little convoluted, but those comments totally cleared things up.
A little whitespace goes a long way. Were the list elements also stored in sequence in some array, or is ->lnk a two-element array with the forward and backward pointers?
The latter applies here, this is the node:
typedef struct dll__ {
struct dll__ *lnk[2];
void *dat;
}ndi;
The more you get exposed to other people's code, the less likely you are to dismiss it as bad immediately. Your first impressions are built upon what styles of coding you're already familiar with, and aren't to be trusted as an objective measure of whether the code is maintainable. In many cases, what you might think is a good practice is really just a fashionable one, and holds little engineering value when examined carefully.
After enough projects, you get used to navigating codebases that are layered with multiple styles and grungy bits from years of effort. At that point, you have some hope of knowing what can and can't be maintained.
After enough projects, you get used to navigating codebases that are layered with multiple styles and grungy bits from years of effort. At that point, you have some hope of knowing what can and can't be maintained.
I'm guessing the downvotes are there (not that I downvoted) because there's absolutely no reason that someone with a CS background can't also be a craftsperson.
There's a difference in approach between academic CS and practical software engineering, yes, but a decent CS grad should be able to pick up both.
Sounds like you worked with people who just weren't as good as they thought they were at that part of it :)
There's a difference in approach between academic CS and practical software engineering, yes, but a decent CS grad should be able to pick up both.
Sounds like you worked with people who just weren't as good as they thought they were at that part of it :)
This is totally true. I am honestly blown away by how little focus Universities have on coding as compared to Computer Science. I understand that the degree is called "Computer Science" and not "Coding/Programming".... But it would be immensely useful career-wise if they focused on at least some Coding aspects (style, readability, code-reviews, etc.).
I'm a mechanical engineer, when I worked for a small manufacturing shop many of the best machine and fixture designs came from the machinists in the tool room. We tried to achieved the balance that you're talking about by having the machinists and engineers collaborate closely.
Speaking from experience, this is true. You also don't really know when true CS is useful until you run into it.
I graduated with the equivalent of a minor in CS. When I started coding for an web-based gaming start-up in 2007, it was mostly irrelevant. You don't need a CS degree to learn Ruby on Rails, nor is it necessarily useful (beyond your basic intro courses) to have taken CS courses.
Flash-forward a year, after we raised our seed round. Our online game had grown in complexity quite a bit, and we found ourselves having to deal with things like complex image rendering, AI, and pathfinding. While it's possible to get a decent grasp of these topics through Google and O'Reilly books, it's definitely an order of magnitude more difficult than figuring out a new web framework. As mentioned before, I only have a minor in CS so my exposure to these topics was minimal, and there were definitely nights where I found myself wishing I had taken another AI or advanced algorithms course.
I graduated with the equivalent of a minor in CS. When I started coding for an web-based gaming start-up in 2007, it was mostly irrelevant. You don't need a CS degree to learn Ruby on Rails, nor is it necessarily useful (beyond your basic intro courses) to have taken CS courses.
Flash-forward a year, after we raised our seed round. Our online game had grown in complexity quite a bit, and we found ourselves having to deal with things like complex image rendering, AI, and pathfinding. While it's possible to get a decent grasp of these topics through Google and O'Reilly books, it's definitely an order of magnitude more difficult than figuring out a new web framework. As mentioned before, I only have a minor in CS so my exposure to these topics was minimal, and there were definitely nights where I found myself wishing I had taken another AI or advanced algorithms course.
My difficulties were the other way round: knowing all the theory doesn't actually make you a better (or even a good) coder. Only when you run into the problems you mentioned, does academics help at all.
These "hardcore" problems like AI and pathfinding are definitely tough problems. The issue is that there's an infinite supply of such problems and there's no way a 4 year degree can cover them all. In fact, even if they did, most lessons would be forgotten before they could be proven useful in the real world.
Why not just learn these areas when needed? Taking an Advanced AI course in just a 2-3 month semester is how many hours? Just spend a week or two hitting the books and you'll be good to go, and you're knowledge will be bleeding edge and up to date. Plus, you'll have been paid to learn it!
Why not just learn these areas when needed? Taking an Advanced AI course in just a 2-3 month semester is how many hours? Just spend a week or two hitting the books and you'll be good to go, and you're knowledge will be bleeding edge and up to date. Plus, you'll have been paid to learn it!
Surprisingly many problems are similar, so in the end you can often apply the methods from one domain to another. If you use your study time well you will remember the general principles even though you might forget the exact implementations and most of the details.
Most importantly, you have a much greater chance of knowing when a solution exists and where to look for it, and more importantly know when no solutions are known.
E.g., the computer scientist recognizes the travelling salesman problem even when it doesn't involves salesmen, travelling or cities. She knows that it's NP-hard so she doesn't spend a few months trying to find an efficient exact solution for her millions of nodes, but she knows where to look to find "good enough" solutions for the problems she is trying to solve.
The autodidakt might not even recognise his problem as a TSP and thus doesn't even know that her problem is hard and which books she needs to start reading.
Most importantly, you have a much greater chance of knowing when a solution exists and where to look for it, and more importantly know when no solutions are known.
E.g., the computer scientist recognizes the travelling salesman problem even when it doesn't involves salesmen, travelling or cities. She knows that it's NP-hard so she doesn't spend a few months trying to find an efficient exact solution for her millions of nodes, but she knows where to look to find "good enough" solutions for the problems she is trying to solve.
The autodidakt might not even recognise his problem as a TSP and thus doesn't even know that her problem is hard and which books she needs to start reading.
While it's true that there is an "infinite supply of these problems", a good CS program it's supposed to teach you how to think, hence teaching you how to learn.
If you have a very solid understanding of the fundamentals, you should be able to go and solve problems you've never seen before. If you don't, you could be stuck using other people's solutions to your problems, hence not being able to solve new ones that you might encounter.
If you have a very solid understanding of the fundamentals, you should be able to go and solve problems you've never seen before. If you don't, you could be stuck using other people's solutions to your problems, hence not being able to solve new ones that you might encounter.
What I value most about my degree is understanding the full technological stack of the computer. You never know where your next improvement might come from, and knowing CS broadens your possible angles of approach so you can tackle a problem from any part of the stack from a high level to a low level, not just within a framework.
CS doesn't make you rote learn solutions to individual problems. It teaches you how to reason about entire classes of problems.
Here is the thing -- algorithms are NOT an order of a magnitude more difficult for everyone. That is simply an unjustified blanket statement.
Believe it or not, some people pick up merge sort or balanced binary trees faster than they can learn Rails (which has a BIG amount of content to master, by the way).
Believe it or not, some people pick up merge sort or balanced binary trees faster than they can learn Rails (which has a BIG amount of content to master, by the way).
I've always thought of computer science as a branch of mathematics. To me coding or programming is applied (or engineering) computer science, it's an engineering field (hence the term software engineer). Just like there is theoretical physics (a basic science), and also applied/engineering physics (e.g. mechanical engineering). They are related fields, but specializing in one does not mean you will be good at the other (it certainly helps).
The terms coding and computer science do get used interchangeably by a lot of people though, since most may not understand the difference. I've learned to live with it (occasionally I point out the difference, if I think the person misusing the terms actually cared to know).
The terms coding and computer science do get used interchangeably by a lot of people though, since most may not understand the difference. I've learned to live with it (occasionally I point out the difference, if I think the person misusing the terms actually cared to know).
I would say some of Computer Science is mathematics. Mathematics is the foundation of Computer Science, but CS is not a branch of mathematics, although the origins of the field are found there. It is an important, core, part of the subject, but it does not entirely encompass it.
For example, CS also includes Psychology, Graphic Design, social science, art, etc.
Also, CS involves the teaching of programming, which is a craft (ignoring edge cases) - crafts cannot be taught through maths alone.
For example, CS also includes Psychology, Graphic Design, social science, art, etc.
Also, CS involves the teaching of programming, which is a craft (ignoring edge cases) - crafts cannot be taught through maths alone.
Absolutely, CS is an inter-disciplinary subject.
My 2 cents on the computer science degree versus coding... (Full disclosure - I have a CS degree from a large public school)
1) Many of the top coders, programmers and data scientists that I know don't have CS degrees. (The top coder I know never finished school. He could move from Assembler to C to Objective C effortlessly, and could do everything from games to operating systems. He wasn't lacking for theory or versatility)
2) Despite this, a Computer Science is more difficult rigorous than most non-engineering degrees. Even at open admissions schools, getting a CS degree means being forced to solve difficult problems.
3) Because of #2, a higher % of CS majors make good programmers than most any other major. (I've seen English majors make good programmers, but at a much lower %)
4) Despite #2 and #3, there are still many unqualified CS majors.
5) There is no typical CS programs. Some are very flexible, some very structured. Some have an engineering focus, some are part of liberal arts schools. Some are too narrow, some are not specialized enough.
6) A few years after college, your grades don't matter. A few years after that, the school doesn't matter. A few more years and your major doesn't really matter. At that point, it's all what you've done with your time. (Though it can help to say, "I have a CS degree. I used to be technical.")
1) Many of the top coders, programmers and data scientists that I know don't have CS degrees. (The top coder I know never finished school. He could move from Assembler to C to Objective C effortlessly, and could do everything from games to operating systems. He wasn't lacking for theory or versatility)
2) Despite this, a Computer Science is more difficult rigorous than most non-engineering degrees. Even at open admissions schools, getting a CS degree means being forced to solve difficult problems.
3) Because of #2, a higher % of CS majors make good programmers than most any other major. (I've seen English majors make good programmers, but at a much lower %)
4) Despite #2 and #3, there are still many unqualified CS majors.
5) There is no typical CS programs. Some are very flexible, some very structured. Some have an engineering focus, some are part of liberal arts schools. Some are too narrow, some are not specialized enough.
6) A few years after college, your grades don't matter. A few years after that, the school doesn't matter. A few more years and your major doesn't really matter. At that point, it's all what you've done with your time. (Though it can help to say, "I have a CS degree. I used to be technical.")
Fundamentally,computer science = data structures + algorithms.
in a data structure class,you learn the basic structures like PODs,structs,vectors and linked lists.
in algorithm class,you learn various basic sorting algorithms plus the big O notation and thats pretty much it.
Then you will take a few physics classes,then chemistry classes,then maybe calculus one and two,then probably discrete mathematics class,one or two writing class,if you a lucky,maybe a single semester of operating system class.
you may learn the basics on haskell in one class,the basic of java in another,maybe assembly in another class and you get your degree.Basically,you will leave school knowing only the basics of a bunch of things but not enough of anything.
The above it how it felt to me as a CS major.
in a data structure class,you learn the basic structures like PODs,structs,vectors and linked lists.
in algorithm class,you learn various basic sorting algorithms plus the big O notation and thats pretty much it.
Then you will take a few physics classes,then chemistry classes,then maybe calculus one and two,then probably discrete mathematics class,one or two writing class,if you a lucky,maybe a single semester of operating system class.
you may learn the basics on haskell in one class,the basic of java in another,maybe assembly in another class and you get your degree.Basically,you will leave school knowing only the basics of a bunch of things but not enough of anything.
The above it how it felt to me as a CS major.
My experience was similar to yours, though even more basic. I went for a 2-year degree at a community college, and it felt as though every course was a refresher in "This is a variable, and what a variable does. This is syntax, and syntax means…" Etc…
It wasn't until getting into the "real world" that I realized the full value of my data structure courses. Those were the ones I kept returning to when trying to learn and understand new skills on the job. (Sadly, my 2-year degree didn't cover any algorithm learning.)
So, now I have the advantage of a few years of "real world" experience to try and plot a course for how to get formal education on the remaining pieces that seem to actually have direct correlation to a career in computer programming.
Not sure if it's a blessing or a curse for me, but I just have to keep moving forward.
It wasn't until getting into the "real world" that I realized the full value of my data structure courses. Those were the ones I kept returning to when trying to learn and understand new skills on the job. (Sadly, my 2-year degree didn't cover any algorithm learning.)
So, now I have the advantage of a few years of "real world" experience to try and plot a course for how to get formal education on the remaining pieces that seem to actually have direct correlation to a career in computer programming.
Not sure if it's a blessing or a curse for me, but I just have to keep moving forward.
People are incredulous when I tell them I use 90% of the stuff learned while getting my CS degree.
Stuff I've done in the real world:
AI: I've lost count of the number of times I've had to implement A*
Graphics: wrote a ray tracer; matrix transformations
Data structures and algorithms: wrote an approximation algorithm for the travelling salesman problem (christofides); fancier data structures like bloom-filters, lru caches; and just every day coding
Databases: query optimization
OS: Made me aware of systems (context switching, caching performance,...). Scheduling algorithms and how they affect the embedded software I write. Concurrent programming.
Networking: Super helpful for everyday stuff when you understand the underlying principles. I've had to implement an RFC from scratch (DNS).
Linear algebra: Used extensively in a path planner I wrote---with it I was able to reduce the state space by orders of magnitude compared to the standard grid approach.
Statistics: wrote an online algorithm for adaptive windowed linear regression
Even computability theory has been helpful, as it has strengthened my proving and reasoning skills---helping me find holes in requirements, or proving algorithms/invariants. Same with all the theoretical math courses I took (Analysis, Set Theory, First Order Logic ...)
The list goes on...
Above all, my CS degree taught me how to learn CS and beyond.
Sometimes I worry about the potential solutions I am overlooking, because I never fully branched into the continuous domain (control theory, etc).
Stuff I've done in the real world:
AI: I've lost count of the number of times I've had to implement A*
Graphics: wrote a ray tracer; matrix transformations
Data structures and algorithms: wrote an approximation algorithm for the travelling salesman problem (christofides); fancier data structures like bloom-filters, lru caches; and just every day coding
Databases: query optimization
OS: Made me aware of systems (context switching, caching performance,...). Scheduling algorithms and how they affect the embedded software I write. Concurrent programming.
Networking: Super helpful for everyday stuff when you understand the underlying principles. I've had to implement an RFC from scratch (DNS).
Linear algebra: Used extensively in a path planner I wrote---with it I was able to reduce the state space by orders of magnitude compared to the standard grid approach.
Statistics: wrote an online algorithm for adaptive windowed linear regression
Even computability theory has been helpful, as it has strengthened my proving and reasoning skills---helping me find holes in requirements, or proving algorithms/invariants. Same with all the theoretical math courses I took (Analysis, Set Theory, First Order Logic ...)
The list goes on...
Above all, my CS degree taught me how to learn CS and beyond.
Sometimes I worry about the potential solutions I am overlooking, because I never fully branched into the continuous domain (control theory, etc).
Sounds like you've had a very interesting career; I'm curious where you've worked. My impression is that most programming jobs are about CRUD-like problems, adapting well-known technology to solve business problems. CS seems like it could only help if there's a well-known algorithm (that would be taught in CS), but no existing implementation available - but in these days of open-source libraries that practically never happens.
FWIW I switched out of CS into Mathematics after one year. I've never implemented A*, I've used raytracers but not implemented my own, used a bloom filter but not implemented it, used an lru cache but not implemented one, used adaptive windowed linear regression but never implemented it myself. When optimizing database queries I've never needed more than EXPLAIN SELECT; when optimizing performance I've never needed more than a language-level profiler. I did actually implement an RFC from scratch (SMTP), but that was easy enough to do by, well, reading it and implementing it.
FWIW I switched out of CS into Mathematics after one year. I've never implemented A*, I've used raytracers but not implemented my own, used a bloom filter but not implemented it, used an lru cache but not implemented one, used adaptive windowed linear regression but never implemented it myself. When optimizing database queries I've never needed more than EXPLAIN SELECT; when optimizing performance I've never needed more than a language-level profiler. I did actually implement an RFC from scratch (SMTP), but that was easy enough to do by, well, reading it and implementing it.
...and I officially envy you...
Fundamentally,computer science = data structures + algorithms.
You know, I keep hearing that, but nobody has ever been able to convince me of it. Those are, indeed, the things that fall sideways out of "computer science" (for want of a better name), but it's a near-equivalent to the statement fundamentally, fluid dynamics = boats and airplanes.
"Computer science" is about developing a method for reasoning about process. For the most part, we're still stuck in a world where intuition plays a larger role than it ought to when developing processes, both in the computing world and in the physical world. Investigations into process have yielded algorithms and heuristics (what to do), of course, and those, in turn, depend upon data structures (what to do it to), but we're still pretty much at the level where we're dealing with specific instances rather than a more general formal language. Chemistry without knowing much about the atom yet, in a way.
What you learn in school (at least at the undergrad level) is "here's what we've found out so far" (as it is in any subject). And while that can be a big help, allowing you to more easily recognise classes of problems, there is still more intuition than reason involved in attacking the really hard problems. Both "software engineering" and "computer science" are about reducing the amount of fuzzy, squishy, intuitive parts, but in different ways. "Software engineering" is about robust application (finding and understanding the use of the equivalent of "materials" in the field); "computer science" is about understanding the fundamentals of process (and may well extend beyond computing).
You know, I keep hearing that, but nobody has ever been able to convince me of it. Those are, indeed, the things that fall sideways out of "computer science" (for want of a better name), but it's a near-equivalent to the statement fundamentally, fluid dynamics = boats and airplanes.
"Computer science" is about developing a method for reasoning about process. For the most part, we're still stuck in a world where intuition plays a larger role than it ought to when developing processes, both in the computing world and in the physical world. Investigations into process have yielded algorithms and heuristics (what to do), of course, and those, in turn, depend upon data structures (what to do it to), but we're still pretty much at the level where we're dealing with specific instances rather than a more general formal language. Chemistry without knowing much about the atom yet, in a way.
What you learn in school (at least at the undergrad level) is "here's what we've found out so far" (as it is in any subject). And while that can be a big help, allowing you to more easily recognise classes of problems, there is still more intuition than reason involved in attacking the really hard problems. Both "software engineering" and "computer science" are about reducing the amount of fuzzy, squishy, intuitive parts, but in different ways. "Software engineering" is about robust application (finding and understanding the use of the equivalent of "materials" in the field); "computer science" is about understanding the fundamentals of process (and may well extend beyond computing).
I think this distinction is incredibly crucial. There has been so much talk about how a CS degree is useless (and I for a moment bought that garbage as a holder of a CS degree), but it is completely untrue.
As you work with more and more people in this industry, you frequently run into people without a degree, or, more importantly, no true know how, as I do stand by the fact that it's not required to have a degree to learn this stuff, who behave as if they are experts regardless of their poor mental model of how computers work.
It's important for these people to know what they don't know. Reminding people that Code is not CS is a good way to make that happen.
As you work with more and more people in this industry, you frequently run into people without a degree, or, more importantly, no true know how, as I do stand by the fact that it's not required to have a degree to learn this stuff, who behave as if they are experts regardless of their poor mental model of how computers work.
It's important for these people to know what they don't know. Reminding people that Code is not CS is a good way to make that happen.
Yeah, a CS degree isn't suuuper-helpful for organizing a coherent program around a snazzy framework for the latest web technologies. It's for when you need to do something like, oh, "figure out how to upgrade the work-management system so you can move from coarse-grained lock system to a finer-grained lock system with zero downtime." Then you think back to your old courses covering Parallelism and the like, and plan it out.
> Treehouse CEO Ryan Carson declares “A computer science degree is a rip off…I know because I have one.” Perhaps his CS degree was from a college which didn’t have a very good program or maybe his focus has been web development where you rarely need computer science.
According to wikipedia:
> In 2000, he graduated from Colorado State University with a Computer Science degree
I suspect, like with most fields, that the school definitely matters (and that he may not have arrived at the same conclusion had he attended a school with a better CS program)
According to wikipedia:
> In 2000, he graduated from Colorado State University with a Computer Science degree
I suspect, like with most fields, that the school definitely matters (and that he may not have arrived at the same conclusion had he attended a school with a better CS program)
I've noticed that the "degree is a rip off" comment crops up among graduates of practically every field from every school, equally from successful people and failures. So I'm not sure that I'd read much into it.
Colorado State is a major research university and has a pretty good CS program. I certainly wouldn't chalk his opinion up to a CS program that wasn't strong enough. I'd attribute it to the nature of web development versus more theoretically intensive problems.
Well, for starters, he is a CEO not a CTO.
The key piece of context about this quote is that Ryan Carson has a vested interest in people deciding they do not need a computer science degree to code.
Well if you think of it, a CEO like Steve Jobs will call the PC a truck... to sell the iPad.
• Computer Science = Truck
• Treehouse = iPad
But how do you make iPad dev tools?
• Computer Science = Truck
• Treehouse = iPad
But how do you make iPad dev tools?
> But how do you make iPad dev tools?
The same way you make a real-world video editing suite work on an iPhone and have the guts to make that your seasonal and campaign: in a careful and considerate fashion without trying to be all things to all people.
That said, if I had an editable Chrome dev tools on a tablet I'd be 50% of the way there some days. :)
And ... Don't read too much in the car/truck comment. Eventually even smart phones will behave like supercomputers. It's just a matter of time.
The same way you make a real-world video editing suite work on an iPhone and have the guts to make that your seasonal and campaign: in a careful and considerate fashion without trying to be all things to all people.
That said, if I had an editable Chrome dev tools on a tablet I'd be 50% of the way there some days. :)
And ... Don't read too much in the car/truck comment. Eventually even smart phones will behave like supercomputers. It's just a matter of time.
You missed the point on what I was inferring.
> The same way you make a real-world video editing suite work on an iPhone and have the guts to make that your seasonal and campaign: in a careful and considerate fashion without trying to be all things to all people.
It isn't about being all things. It is about a level of control you need while working. This is actually a mathematics problem namely Godel's second theorem of incompleteness which states and this is a brief description that "a system cannot contain itself" meaning that you can build a system of components but those components can't be built from inside the system. This equally applies to software.
> That said, if I had an editable Chrome dev tools on a tablet I'd be 50% of the way there some days. :)
Again you're conflating two issues. Not all dev tools can exist is a browser. If they do then by definition they don't exist in the browser anymore. A paradox. If your dev tools can exist in the browser alone then you definitely are using only a subset of necessary dev tools for other domains. It is obvious that you are a web dev but then I'm not and the browser doesn't cut it for me.
> And ... Don't read too much in the car/truck comment. Eventually even smart phones will behave like supercomputers. It's just a matter of time.
Then again you missed it. I wasn't reading into it. I was comparing how the CEO of Treehouse was dissing CS degrees because he wanted to sell his tutorials like Jobs was dissing the PC because he wanted to sell iPads.
> The same way you make a real-world video editing suite work on an iPhone and have the guts to make that your seasonal and campaign: in a careful and considerate fashion without trying to be all things to all people.
It isn't about being all things. It is about a level of control you need while working. This is actually a mathematics problem namely Godel's second theorem of incompleteness which states and this is a brief description that "a system cannot contain itself" meaning that you can build a system of components but those components can't be built from inside the system. This equally applies to software.
> That said, if I had an editable Chrome dev tools on a tablet I'd be 50% of the way there some days. :)
Again you're conflating two issues. Not all dev tools can exist is a browser. If they do then by definition they don't exist in the browser anymore. A paradox. If your dev tools can exist in the browser alone then you definitely are using only a subset of necessary dev tools for other domains. It is obvious that you are a web dev but then I'm not and the browser doesn't cut it for me.
> And ... Don't read too much in the car/truck comment. Eventually even smart phones will behave like supercomputers. It's just a matter of time.
Then again you missed it. I wasn't reading into it. I was comparing how the CEO of Treehouse was dissing CS degrees because he wanted to sell his tutorials like Jobs was dissing the PC because he wanted to sell iPads.
> Eventually even smart phones will behave like supercomputers.
I just had a vision of a Paralella board as the main CPU for a mobile phone... wow, that would be neat.
I just had a vision of a Paralella board as the main CPU for a mobile phone... wow, that would be neat.
"... how much you learn in college depends a lot more on you than the college. A determined party animal can get through the best school without learning anything. And someone with a real thirst for knowledge will be able to find a few smart people to learn from at a school that isn't prestigious at all." - PG
Have to agree with this. How good you are at coding is more related to the number of hours you put in than grades or school. People who enjoy coding have the advantage of being able to spend more hours before getting tired/bored, and thus become better coders than top CS graduates who are just trying to pass college.
Have to agree with this. How good you are at coding is more related to the number of hours you put in than grades or school. People who enjoy coding have the advantage of being able to spend more hours before getting tired/bored, and thus become better coders than top CS graduates who are just trying to pass college.
The first thing anyone in this discussion has to realize is that different schools can have vastly different computing science programs. While there is conceptual similarities between most computing science programs, they can vary drastically in breadth and depth. And what one gets out of a program can also depend on the path the individual student takes.
If you feel you got nothing out of your education or that your education was mostly worthwhile, that may not reflect on computing science in general but just of one particular implementation of it.
If you feel you got nothing out of your education or that your education was mostly worthwhile, that may not reflect on computing science in general but just of one particular implementation of it.
The value of a degree is what you make of it. I think the most important aspect of college/grad school/etc. is that you have the opportunity to push the bounds of your mind. I spent 4 years in grad school for math at an excellent program, and to most people, it would probably be considered a waste since I use almost none of it in my daily work (programming). However, the value for me has been to push the limits of my ability to abstract concepts, and see how other similar high level minds perform.
When I was 16, I was obsessed with 3D graphics (hilariously primitive back 30 years ago). I learned programming to create , rotate, translate, and shade objects in 3D space. I learned computer science to understand how you manage vector lists, matrix math, and strange recursion algorithms. I learned that programming is computer science applied. Sort of like how math is a tool to apply calculus to real work problems. One won't work without the other. Saying "code != computer science" is a misrepresentation of the symbiotic process that's going on in the human mind. I think a fair statement is: programming(code) is the first level of computer science knowledge.
Isn't that exactly what the author is saying, though? He's saying that programming is part of computer science, but knowing how to code doesn't mean you know computer science.
That's not what I'm saying. Saying "code" and "computer science" are two different things is a bit ridiculous.
Coding / programming is part of computer science. CS includes maths, electronics, micro electronics, logic gates, how hard drives work, and what not. CS is about computing and computers as a whole. So, coding is only a part of it.
In fact, I see this title as the wrong way round, it should be: computer science is not coding. Too many people think codes know all about computers. In my experience, they dont. They have a limited skill set. Just like support staff who usually cant really code.
Having a CS degree myself, I have always felt at an advantage over people who, for example, only program but know knaff all about hardware, OS's, servers, etc, and support people who only have things like MCSEs, and don't know the low level fundamentals.
For me, having a CS degree makes me a jack of all trades, all be it, master of none.
In fact, I see this title as the wrong way round, it should be: computer science is not coding. Too many people think codes know all about computers. In my experience, they dont. They have a limited skill set. Just like support staff who usually cant really code.
Having a CS degree myself, I have always felt at an advantage over people who, for example, only program but know knaff all about hardware, OS's, servers, etc, and support people who only have things like MCSEs, and don't know the low level fundamentals.
For me, having a CS degree makes me a jack of all trades, all be it, master of none.
At American universities, there is often a different degree for the hardware aspect of computing: Computer Engineering, which deals with digital design and other hardware stuff.
Computer Science is generally focused on algorithms and math, but the emphasis on coding varies across universities -- some are way more math heavy, while others have more software project work.
A few universities have a separate Software Engineering degree, like Cal Poly SLO. The emphasis is on the process of software development and applying computer science fundamentals to a product. This is the job of gathering requirements, designing a piece of software, and, often, actually implementing it.
SEs have to know how to structure software and put together data structures and algorithms, integrating knowledge of the hardware (and underlying layers, like the OS) that the software is running on. Computer engineers and electrical engineers make the hardware and everything lower than the OS. Computer scientists have to know how to develop new data structures and algorithms. Making software requires the work of all three professions.
I think there's a huge difference between "learning to code" and "learning to become a software engineer," or "learning to become a computer scientist." One can learn to code without a breadth of domain-specific knowledge, which obtaining a degree may give you.
Computer Science is generally focused on algorithms and math, but the emphasis on coding varies across universities -- some are way more math heavy, while others have more software project work.
A few universities have a separate Software Engineering degree, like Cal Poly SLO. The emphasis is on the process of software development and applying computer science fundamentals to a product. This is the job of gathering requirements, designing a piece of software, and, often, actually implementing it.
SEs have to know how to structure software and put together data structures and algorithms, integrating knowledge of the hardware (and underlying layers, like the OS) that the software is running on. Computer engineers and electrical engineers make the hardware and everything lower than the OS. Computer scientists have to know how to develop new data structures and algorithms. Making software requires the work of all three professions.
I think there's a huge difference between "learning to code" and "learning to become a software engineer," or "learning to become a computer scientist." One can learn to code without a breadth of domain-specific knowledge, which obtaining a degree may give you.
The truth is that the world needs a lot more software engineers than computer scientists. Yes, there are a lot of hard problems that are best solved by government or academic research, but there is a lot more software eating the world. And to develop the vast majority of that software, you don't need much academic CS knowledge.
I know, because I have a mastered in CS and considered getting my Phd. I decided to join industry instead, because I wanted more money. I hardly use any of my CS knowledge on a day to day basis working as a web developer. Yet I make $160k in my mid 20s while my 60 year old professor has never cracked 6 digits... It's sad in a way, but to each his own I guess.
I know, because I have a mastered in CS and considered getting my Phd. I decided to join industry instead, because I wanted more money. I hardly use any of my CS knowledge on a day to day basis working as a web developer. Yet I make $160k in my mid 20s while my 60 year old professor has never cracked 6 digits... It's sad in a way, but to each his own I guess.
I would far prefer to earn half as much if it meant working only on problems I find interesting and spending my time teaching others, instead of churning out websites. To each their own, but your pity for your proffesor is likely misplaced.
A 4 year degree is only valuable if you actually had the mental maturity to take advantage of it at the time (I didn't). Unfortunately, that doesn't seem true with the majority of the kids graduating from high school. They see it as just another hoop to jump through.
If someone told me now that I can spend 4 years just learning things, have access to intelligent people, and great resources/facilities without worrying about a gap in my cv, I would jump at that chance.
I am going to hacker school in Feb, so hopefully it will be kind of like that. Albeit for a much shorter amount of time (3 months).
If someone told me now that I can spend 4 years just learning things, have access to intelligent people, and great resources/facilities without worrying about a gap in my cv, I would jump at that chance.
I am going to hacker school in Feb, so hopefully it will be kind of like that. Albeit for a much shorter amount of time (3 months).
Like many things in programming, it all boils down to the samn damn arguments that musicians have. Sure, you don't need a music degree to be a musician. But I'm damned proud that I have one, because it's helped me advance the one thing in life that I love doing more than anything else further past most people my age. I have a B.M. in Jazz Studies with a concentration in Vocal Performance.
The only way you can reasonably believe that college was "a rip off" is if you didn't have ANY fun that whole time. If you can honestly say that, then I am sorry. You allowed a part of your adolescence become robbed by people who told you what to do. But if you had even an ounce of enjoyment throughout college, if the idea of learning computer science made you smile even one bit, then it was absolutely not a rip-off or a waste of time.
"Your time was not wasted if you were happy" - John Lennon
The only way you can reasonably believe that college was "a rip off" is if you didn't have ANY fun that whole time. If you can honestly say that, then I am sorry. You allowed a part of your adolescence become robbed by people who told you what to do. But if you had even an ounce of enjoyment throughout college, if the idea of learning computer science made you smile even one bit, then it was absolutely not a rip-off or a waste of time.
"Your time was not wasted if you were happy" - John Lennon
This is like saying speaking fluent English doesn't make you a genius, and being a Genius doesn't mean you will speak fluent English.
Having a CS degree won't make you a genius, or guarantee you write beautiful code.
There are 3 factors at play. Brains, Fluency, and Theory.
If you have good theory you won't spend 100 years trying to figure out things people already have figured out.
If you have good Fluency you will write like people in that language write. "Your code is very Pythonic".
If you have brains you may solve a problem no one thought was possible.
I don't have a CS degree, but I'm a "grey beard" as a result I have good theory. I don't speak Python as a first language, or the language I think in, so I don't have good fluency. As a certified Genius I have a big brain and often solve things people didn't think were solvable. So I make up for a lack of fluency.
Having a CS degree won't make you a genius, or guarantee you write beautiful code.
There are 3 factors at play. Brains, Fluency, and Theory.
If you have good theory you won't spend 100 years trying to figure out things people already have figured out.
If you have good Fluency you will write like people in that language write. "Your code is very Pythonic".
If you have brains you may solve a problem no one thought was possible.
I don't have a CS degree, but I'm a "grey beard" as a result I have good theory. I don't speak Python as a first language, or the language I think in, so I don't have good fluency. As a certified Genius I have a big brain and often solve things people didn't think were solvable. So I make up for a lack of fluency.
Where does one apply for their genius certification? Perhaps I can slap that on my resume.
Seriously though, I like the assessment. I've worked with people from all three camps. Everyone has their pros and cons. I work in the medical space and end up spending a lot of time with more academic types.
In my experience they haven't been the best "architects", but they have been great at solving tough problems and writing code that does what it is supposed to do. I work with them to develop it, and then I take our code and integrate it in a way that allows us to maintain it more easily over the years.
Seriously though, I like the assessment. I've worked with people from all three camps. Everyone has their pros and cons. I work in the medical space and end up spending a lot of time with more academic types.
In my experience they haven't been the best "architects", but they have been great at solving tough problems and writing code that does what it is supposed to do. I work with them to develop it, and then I take our code and integrate it in a way that allows us to maintain it more easily over the years.
Mensa is one place. But there are others. Cerebrals Society, Intertel, Prometheus Society, The Triple Nines.
My role at Microsoft was as Subject Matter Expert. SME's don't write "much code" but we tend to prove problems are addressable in code and build proof of concept code.
My current role as CTO I work in python which is not a language I have been doing for very long. I struggle with Lambda's and List Comprehension, often opting to use slower constructs that a less experienced developer would use. But the logic is solid.
I also often am completely with out error handling, and just say. "Well duh, if you try and stuff HTML in my text field it breaks." or "Why did you use curly quotes I'm not handling your Unicode".
Part of that is "not knowing" because I don't do it 40 hours a week, and part of it is that it is cheaper to have other fix my code than it is to tie me up adding all the error handling and input validation.
My role at Microsoft was as Subject Matter Expert. SME's don't write "much code" but we tend to prove problems are addressable in code and build proof of concept code.
My current role as CTO I work in python which is not a language I have been doing for very long. I struggle with Lambda's and List Comprehension, often opting to use slower constructs that a less experienced developer would use. But the logic is solid.
I also often am completely with out error handling, and just say. "Well duh, if you try and stuff HTML in my text field it breaks." or "Why did you use curly quotes I'm not handling your Unicode".
Part of that is "not knowing" because I don't do it 40 hours a week, and part of it is that it is cheaper to have other fix my code than it is to tie me up adding all the error handling and input validation.
This. If you're judging Computer Science by coding, you are making a huge mistake. Computer Science does not teach you how to code. I remember the only time my university teach me how to code is during our introductory course. Computer Programming 1. And that's it. You're on your own in your coding.
Computer Science is more than just coding. It involves graphs, complexity, math, theories, and much more. Which is a lot. And is hard.
Like math, anyone can do math. But not anyone can be a mathematician. Anyone can code, but not anyone can be a computer scientist.
Computer Science is more than just coding. It involves graphs, complexity, math, theories, and much more. Which is a lot. And is hard.
Like math, anyone can do math. But not anyone can be a mathematician. Anyone can code, but not anyone can be a computer scientist.
If you do a CS degree that does not involve being taught to code, and code well, then I would ask for your money back.
I agree that the distinction needs to be made, although the exact difference between the two, as many of the comments have already stated well, is hard to define. A good post.
Nowadays academia is under ever increasing pressure to produce fit-for-work experts, and seen from such a perspective it really can look pointless. I personally strongly disagree with such a view. IMO, it should appear to be pointless! It should broaden your thinking and introduce you to the cutting edge of the field, not just specialize you for a certain line of work. There should be programs which will do only such a specialization, but a full-on CS course is supposed to be more. In the end, how well you will work will depend on a lot more than just the school, but a good school will help.
The Law of Leaky Abstractions is, perhaps, a good argument for why it is useful to learn all that theory even though in practice it is rarely needed. Sometimes, you just need to know what is going on behind the scenes.
P.S. I always have the feeling that the Dunning-Kruger effect is strongly present in these discussions. The first programmer that I heard claiming that a degree is useless is also the guy who didn't know what a DB transaction is for and when he should use it. It's not a huge deal, we fixed the bug, taught him, and then he knew. But - not knowing such basics, how could he possibly know what else he is also oblivious about?
We need good schools to teach us that we don't know shit.
Nowadays academia is under ever increasing pressure to produce fit-for-work experts, and seen from such a perspective it really can look pointless. I personally strongly disagree with such a view. IMO, it should appear to be pointless! It should broaden your thinking and introduce you to the cutting edge of the field, not just specialize you for a certain line of work. There should be programs which will do only such a specialization, but a full-on CS course is supposed to be more. In the end, how well you will work will depend on a lot more than just the school, but a good school will help.
The Law of Leaky Abstractions is, perhaps, a good argument for why it is useful to learn all that theory even though in practice it is rarely needed. Sometimes, you just need to know what is going on behind the scenes.
P.S. I always have the feeling that the Dunning-Kruger effect is strongly present in these discussions. The first programmer that I heard claiming that a degree is useless is also the guy who didn't know what a DB transaction is for and when he should use it. It's not a huge deal, we fixed the bug, taught him, and then he knew. But - not knowing such basics, how could he possibly know what else he is also oblivious about?
We need good schools to teach us that we don't know shit.
I have a CS degree from a minor state school. It was okay, not as rigorous as the programs of a few friends who went to much more respected schools, but not bad either. I happened to have an excellent CS teacher in high school. Honestly, almost all of the CS I've employed in 15+ years as a professional programmer, I actually learned in high school.
Personally, I would advise young folks who are already passionate about programming and technology to either go all-out in a true engineering field or pursue something that will equip them with a very different skillset. For example, if you have programming skills but get a degree in business and focus on accounting, you could easily be the most productive member of your department. Meanwhile, you'd have the savvy and knowledge to spin up your own side business doing software consulting or, say, mobile apps.
I would go so far as to say that, assuming you are motivated and already coding and have a decent math background, a CS program isn't worth it unless it's from a really, really good school.
Personally, I would advise young folks who are already passionate about programming and technology to either go all-out in a true engineering field or pursue something that will equip them with a very different skillset. For example, if you have programming skills but get a degree in business and focus on accounting, you could easily be the most productive member of your department. Meanwhile, you'd have the savvy and knowledge to spin up your own side business doing software consulting or, say, mobile apps.
I would go so far as to say that, assuming you are motivated and already coding and have a decent math background, a CS program isn't worth it unless it's from a really, really good school.
The difference between software development and computer science is the difference between being able to assemble a car from spare parts, and being able to design the pieces like a new engine or gear box.
The two skill sets don't overlap entirely. However having the latter generally makes mastering the former somewhat easier.
The two skill sets don't overlap entirely. However having the latter generally makes mastering the former somewhat easier.
The best analogy I've read in this thread so far.
"So, please, go do that hour of code if you haven’t already. Who knows? Maybe you’ll want to become a software developer, but even if you don’t, it’s worth the effort, and might even be fun!"
I need someone to please explain this last bit to me. He seems to suggest that it's pretty easy to become a software developer. This idea seems to be pretty common across hacker news. That all it takes is a little bit of research, and anyone can get a job as a software developer. Is this true? I've been trying to change my current career path from engineering to software development, and I cannot seem to get any conversations started. Does anyone have experience changing their early career paths and how they went about implementing the necessary steps?
I need someone to please explain this last bit to me. He seems to suggest that it's pretty easy to become a software developer. This idea seems to be pretty common across hacker news. That all it takes is a little bit of research, and anyone can get a job as a software developer. Is this true? I've been trying to change my current career path from engineering to software development, and I cannot seem to get any conversations started. Does anyone have experience changing their early career paths and how they went about implementing the necessary steps?
I've spent some time teaching people web development (Ruby, Rails, Javascript) both as a professional trainer and as a volunteer through RailsBridge. I've seen a few motivated individuals go from non-coder to software developer in less than 1 year. Certainly you can get paid jobs writing code sooner, but these folks were doing real development in 6-9 months.
With an engineering background you already have a good foundation in problem-solving. I would recommend learning one language really well first. I like Ruby or Python for beginners. Javascript is very practical, but I agree with the other folks in this thread who compared it to C. It's lack of structure make it a hard first language. Then find a small open source project to get involved with. A lot of open source coders will happily mentor you if you put in the effort to contribute -- you can start by contributing docs and good bug reports. Get started, see if you like it. It's not easy, but it can be done. For me, it has always been fun.
By the way, I'm a she :)
With an engineering background you already have a good foundation in problem-solving. I would recommend learning one language really well first. I like Ruby or Python for beginners. Javascript is very practical, but I agree with the other folks in this thread who compared it to C. It's lack of structure make it a hard first language. Then find a small open source project to get involved with. A lot of open source coders will happily mentor you if you put in the effort to contribute -- you can start by contributing docs and good bug reports. Get started, see if you like it. It's not easy, but it can be done. For me, it has always been fun.
By the way, I'm a she :)
I apologize. I tend to automatically assume most writers are male. It's a terrible default state.
Anyways, I'm already pretty well versed on that basics of programming. I think the key, as you pointed out, is to get involved in an open source project to build up my portfolio. Python is the language I prefer, but I use vb.net to build the tools I use at work since the .net framework provides a great interface with the microsoft products corporate office workers are slaves to. I'll start searching for local open-source contributors.
Anyways, I'm already pretty well versed on that basics of programming. I think the key, as you pointed out, is to get involved in an open source project to build up my portfolio. Python is the language I prefer, but I use vb.net to build the tools I use at work since the .net framework provides a great interface with the microsoft products corporate office workers are slaves to. I'll start searching for local open-source contributors.
I know someone who went from not coding at all to a proffesional dev in 2 years. He got hooked on a programmable game mod at the age of 16, and by the time he graduated high school he was working as a web developer. Never took a CS class in his life, he just got really into it.
Well, it's true. Code is not computer science any more than paint and brushes are artistic paintings or nuts and bolts mechanical engineering.
People learn what they learn, formally or informally, and then they either develop a passion for what they learned, or not. Not everyone who studies art can produce artwork most would enjoy, much less a masterpiece. And, in this regard, having encyclopedic knowledge in the field isn't a solution.
What I am saying is that it is about the person, not the encyclopedia. Developing artistry requires knowledge, passion and dedication. Knowledge alone isn't the entire equation. Knowledge without passion and dedication is useless, no matter where it comes from. And this might very well be the reason a lot of CS grads falter.
People learn what they learn, formally or informally, and then they either develop a passion for what they learned, or not. Not everyone who studies art can produce artwork most would enjoy, much less a masterpiece. And, in this regard, having encyclopedic knowledge in the field isn't a solution.
What I am saying is that it is about the person, not the encyclopedia. Developing artistry requires knowledge, passion and dedication. Knowledge alone isn't the entire equation. Knowledge without passion and dedication is useless, no matter where it comes from. And this might very well be the reason a lot of CS grads falter.
| Also most software has advanced features that require you to do things that use coding skills — setting up mail filters, creating spreadsheet formulas, even styles in Microsoft Word.
I've worked with many people who, while presumably listing Microsoft Office skills on their resume, spend time with repetitive tasks in Excel that could be done in minutes or seconds with a formula and a click-and-drag.
I've found that the hardest part is finding the best way to tell them that there is an easier way without being condescending or making them feel foolish. I usually go with "Hey, um, can I show you something?" But ideally this opens the window to realizing that you can make Excel (and computers in general) do stuff for you.
I've worked with many people who, while presumably listing Microsoft Office skills on their resume, spend time with repetitive tasks in Excel that could be done in minutes or seconds with a formula and a click-and-drag.
I've found that the hardest part is finding the best way to tell them that there is an easier way without being condescending or making them feel foolish. I usually go with "Hey, um, can I show you something?" But ideally this opens the window to realizing that you can make Excel (and computers in general) do stuff for you.
If you code and develop in it, you're bound to hit computer science whether officially or informally. Because if you don't, you aren't really coding: you're just staying at your comfort zone and that's no more coding than learning to play a dozen songs with piano and just playing those over and over is not really playing piano.
On the other hand, if your background is top-notch computer science you just may suck at coding ― which would be just ok except that I suggest that not many advances in computer science happen unless the dilemmas at hand stem from practical programming problems, after which they can be explained and modelled theoretically and theoretical solutions be devised.
On the other hand, if your background is top-notch computer science you just may suck at coding ― which would be just ok except that I suggest that not many advances in computer science happen unless the dilemmas at hand stem from practical programming problems, after which they can be explained and modelled theoretically and theoretical solutions be devised.
People who claim they'll never use computer science in their job as a programmer remind me of the people who say they'll never need math after school.
It reminds me of the old xkcd: you can get by without it, but the fun things in life are always optional.
It reminds me of the old xkcd: you can get by without it, but the fun things in life are always optional.
Yeah, but most dev work isn't very interesting.
From my observations, many seem to dismiss anything related to computer science that is not cutting edge research. For instance, I once recall reading a comment downplaying the Linux kernel because it only used simple algorithms that any first year CS student would learn.
And that may be the case, but that attitude places CS on a pedestal that most people feel is out of their reach. As such, when they use CS fundamentals in their day-to-day programming job, they don't really feel like they are using CS. They're just coding.
Similarly, I think people hold similar attitudes about math. Arithmetic isn't math. It is what elementary school students learn. Only mathematicians with chalkboards full of unintelligible symbols dreaming up formulas that the world has never seen before use math in their job.
And that may be the case, but that attitude places CS on a pedestal that most people feel is out of their reach. As such, when they use CS fundamentals in their day-to-day programming job, they don't really feel like they are using CS. They're just coding.
Similarly, I think people hold similar attitudes about math. Arithmetic isn't math. It is what elementary school students learn. Only mathematicians with chalkboards full of unintelligible symbols dreaming up formulas that the world has never seen before use math in their job.
"[Computer science] is not really about computers -- and it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators, and biology is not about microscopes and Petri dishes...and geometry isn't really about using surveying instruments. Now the reason that we think computer science is about computers is pretty much the same reason that the Egyptians thought geometry was about surveying instruments: when some field is just getting started and you don't really understand it very well, it's very easy to confuse the essence of what you're doing with the tools that you use."
-- Hal Abelson
Do you need a CS degree to become a programmer? Of course not, I don't have one but I can program.
Does a CS degree make you a better programmer? Most certainly it will! It will give you an optimal background on which you can build solid knowledge. But you can't be 100% sure about that either.
Can you learn everything and more than a CS laureate by yourself? Of course you can, especially today that information (mostly about technology) flows free online. You can order books from amazon (Knuth anyone?), etc.
As my genius Math professor once said: "When you come to the oral exam session, I will ask you a question. In 99% of cases, the answer is: it depends..."
Does a CS degree make you a better programmer? Most certainly it will! It will give you an optimal background on which you can build solid knowledge. But you can't be 100% sure about that either.
Can you learn everything and more than a CS laureate by yourself? Of course you can, especially today that information (mostly about technology) flows free online. You can order books from amazon (Knuth anyone?), etc.
As my genius Math professor once said: "When you come to the oral exam session, I will ask you a question. In 99% of cases, the answer is: it depends..."
computer science != a CS degree
hahaha that is a whole new can of worms...
In my experience, mentors matter more than the course title. I've had the privilege of being taught by some of the best teachers and witnessed some of the worst. When your instructor deals with the course material as the sole purpose of a student being in class then the important lessons of computer science become nothing more than an exercise in regurgitation. However I've had my eyes opened by certain individuals who showed me what mathematics means in real life, how algorithms fail, why project management is important and how it's done and even how all coding has a mathematical basis (like SQL and compiler decisions). Personally my CS appreciation was a byproduct of being in the presence of these mentors rather than reading a book. They showed me the essence of the science. Mind you I love the books and still read my university books sometimes for fun, sometimes to brush up on the science after getting rusty.
In my experience, mentors matter more than the course title. I've had the privilege of being taught by some of the best teachers and witnessed some of the worst. When your instructor deals with the course material as the sole purpose of a student being in class then the important lessons of computer science become nothing more than an exercise in regurgitation. However I've had my eyes opened by certain individuals who showed me what mathematics means in real life, how algorithms fail, why project management is important and how it's done and even how all coding has a mathematical basis (like SQL and compiler decisions). Personally my CS appreciation was a byproduct of being in the presence of these mentors rather than reading a book. They showed me the essence of the science. Mind you I love the books and still read my university books sometimes for fun, sometimes to brush up on the science after getting rusty.
True but:
Code people, should be open to learn theory when needed.
CS people, should be open to understand that writing code is not marginal and takes a lot of time to master.
Probably more cooperation would be needed.
Code people, should be open to learn theory when needed.
CS people, should be open to understand that writing code is not marginal and takes a lot of time to master.
Probably more cooperation would be needed.
I think the distinction is more like medical researchers and practitioners. CS is more like the research aspect of the craft but once it's done it has to be applied in practice. Sometimes you don't need to be a doctor when feel you have a cold and just take a day off and stay in bed, but a nurse can't help you with cancer. Most people get the common flu and for them you don't have to see a doctor, but what happens in our profession is that some people think that all problems are equivalent to the flu.
Programming is a crucial part of CS. There is no separation of the two
Programmers who don't know CS are programmers who are less educated in the theory of their practice.
Programmers who don't know CS are programmers who are less educated in the theory of their practice.
My father sent me a link to lifehacker, and was surprised to find I really enjoyed it. I thought it was humourous yet well designed and it explained loops well.
The example I tried involved moving angry birds and zombies around on the screen, and it required a bit of thought. It wasn't rocket science, but it wasn't a walk in the park either. This movement will be successful as long as the right resources are available.
The example I tried involved moving angry birds and zombies around on the screen, and it required a bit of thought. It wasn't rocket science, but it wasn't a walk in the park either. This movement will be successful as long as the right resources are available.
Customers rarely care what we code or computer science in
Customers of any product rarely care what the people involved with the arts and sciences behind those product's creations do.
That observation is not restricted to coding or comp sci.
That observation is not restricted to coding or comp sci.
Yup, they just want to receive value (saving or making money/time) for using the product.
I don't know that I've ever been more torn about a comment than this one. I worked in both "core dev" and professional services development, and have seen what comes from well-architected software design, the sort of architecture that only experienced top-line CS graduates (or several-decades-worth-of-experience autodidacts or engineers) seem capable of producing (IMHO, YMWV)...
...and have seen many, many 1.0's, shelfware, etc.
A CS grad from a top-flight school with excellent experience is worth their weight in gold, at least on teams of multiple people developing big systems - you want at least one, they will take care of data design, software architecture, etc., and likely cause your code to be more robust, more maintainable, etc.
But motivated college grads (I'm Canadian, not sure what the US term would be), talented engineers, and autodidacts can crank out code like nobody's business. I don't know that I'd want to built a multi-year "core services" library out of it, but PoCs, MVPs, 1.0's, and demoware? Why not? And the top-flight CS grad might be wasted there.
I'm torn because I care about quality, but really high quality only matters for the really long-lived system, the health-and-safety-critical system, and the system that must survive on its own with minimal human intervention and maintenance.
Were I building a radiation control for healthcare, I would want electrical engineers and CS grads from top-flight systems. Ditto military avionics.
If I was building apps, apps, apps, servers built atop well-architected OSS libraries, etc., I'd want code, fast, and I'd balance quality Vs lifetime to maximize profit, and probably hire less experienced, less well trained devs who "give good face", understand requirements, and code fast.
The libraries themselves? Good question....
I don't have a conclusion. But j45 is right, customers don't care so much - but they don't want 3AM bugs, either. It's a trade-off.
...and have seen many, many 1.0's, shelfware, etc.
A CS grad from a top-flight school with excellent experience is worth their weight in gold, at least on teams of multiple people developing big systems - you want at least one, they will take care of data design, software architecture, etc., and likely cause your code to be more robust, more maintainable, etc.
But motivated college grads (I'm Canadian, not sure what the US term would be), talented engineers, and autodidacts can crank out code like nobody's business. I don't know that I'd want to built a multi-year "core services" library out of it, but PoCs, MVPs, 1.0's, and demoware? Why not? And the top-flight CS grad might be wasted there.
I'm torn because I care about quality, but really high quality only matters for the really long-lived system, the health-and-safety-critical system, and the system that must survive on its own with minimal human intervention and maintenance.
Were I building a radiation control for healthcare, I would want electrical engineers and CS grads from top-flight systems. Ditto military avionics.
If I was building apps, apps, apps, servers built atop well-architected OSS libraries, etc., I'd want code, fast, and I'd balance quality Vs lifetime to maximize profit, and probably hire less experienced, less well trained devs who "give good face", understand requirements, and code fast.
The libraries themselves? Good question....
I don't have a conclusion. But j45 is right, customers don't care so much - but they don't want 3AM bugs, either. It's a trade-off.
A few observations:
- Being reasonably kind to your future self without over engineering or over architecting is the real skill of a talented developer/engineer in my eyes.
- All software is like hardware, no matter how it's built, it has it's limits that will likely have to be revisited.
- Customers not caring about which language/framework something is made in doesn't mean the code is automatically unkept or made carelessly.
- Most languages and frameworks are pretty capable. All have their tradeoffs of what they uniquely provide vs give away. Very few projects will critically fail or succeed solely from the selection of a particular framework or language.
- I'm not sure if you're connecting customers who don't care what language their system is built in, causing 3 AM bugs. If so:
a) 3 AM bugs are not a cause of any particular language of framework or language, or the customer not caring about which one, but rather, the developer.
b) Bugs are a reality on all platforms, and are best insulated against by a combination of process, policy and strategy that can be reasonably implemented in any stack.
Ultimately, it's about how the user feels and the value that provided to them in solving a pain.
Customer value is NOT the same value the developer provides themselves to make the developer's own life easier and somehow believing that all the build tools in the world will solve the customer's problem any better, or make a difference for the end user. It's not as often as it seems.
Most languages and frameworks are capable of delivering delight if the developer spends time focussing on the user's pain and not just their own pains in their stack. Looking at how much value HN provides, it's not a function of it's language, framework, or coding.
Maybe like inter-faith, i'm an inter-platform kind of guy as a polyglot and see the good everyone can be doing instead of dividing among syntactical philosophy that is indistinguishable to the users in the end.
- Being reasonably kind to your future self without over engineering or over architecting is the real skill of a talented developer/engineer in my eyes.
- All software is like hardware, no matter how it's built, it has it's limits that will likely have to be revisited.
- Customers not caring about which language/framework something is made in doesn't mean the code is automatically unkept or made carelessly.
- Most languages and frameworks are pretty capable. All have their tradeoffs of what they uniquely provide vs give away. Very few projects will critically fail or succeed solely from the selection of a particular framework or language.
- I'm not sure if you're connecting customers who don't care what language their system is built in, causing 3 AM bugs. If so:
a) 3 AM bugs are not a cause of any particular language of framework or language, or the customer not caring about which one, but rather, the developer.
b) Bugs are a reality on all platforms, and are best insulated against by a combination of process, policy and strategy that can be reasonably implemented in any stack.
Ultimately, it's about how the user feels and the value that provided to them in solving a pain.
Customer value is NOT the same value the developer provides themselves to make the developer's own life easier and somehow believing that all the build tools in the world will solve the customer's problem any better, or make a difference for the end user. It's not as often as it seems.
Most languages and frameworks are capable of delivering delight if the developer spends time focussing on the user's pain and not just their own pains in their stack. Looking at how much value HN provides, it's not a function of it's language, framework, or coding.
Maybe like inter-faith, i'm an inter-platform kind of guy as a polyglot and see the good everyone can be doing instead of dividing among syntactical philosophy that is indistinguishable to the users in the end.
[deleted]
I had penned my views on this (very similar!) here a while ago :
Code - It's not just it !
http://priyankasriraghavan.blogspot.in/2013/07/programming-m...
What I learned while getting my CS degree:
The physics of microelectronic devices Machine language C Data structures Sociology Psychology Anthropology Literature Politics and Activism
College is an opportunity to learn. Whether you seize it or waste it is up to you.
[edit: just want to add that the OP makes a great point]
The physics of microelectronic devices Machine language C Data structures Sociology Psychology Anthropology Literature Politics and Activism
College is an opportunity to learn. Whether you seize it or waste it is up to you.
[edit: just want to add that the OP makes a great point]
Computer science == models of computing. One of those models is language. We can run machines without codes, but with feelings and images. We, human beings, are just complex finite automata with very complex states and meta-states.
[deleted]
I did an undergrad in CS (Columbia) - in retrospect I should only have minored in CS.
I'm not sure it's worth the workload!
You will have _no_ free time and get reamed in GPA
Very math-heavy and the project based classes were brutal.
I'm not sure it's worth the workload!
You will have _no_ free time and get reamed in GPA
Very math-heavy and the project based classes were brutal.
I'm sure this depends a lot on what your preferences are. I just finished my undergrad in computer engineering at Columbia. I thought the project-based classes (and the vast amounts of work they entailed) were the most valuable parts of the program. Sure, you'd probably get higher grades if you just minored, but when it comes to hiring for software engineering jobs, companies tend to care more about what you know and what you've done than what your grades are. And you're more likely to know more about CS and have done more interesting projects if you have taken difficult project-based classes like operating systems, embedded systems, and programming languages and translators.
I will never forget OS 1... I still have nightmares
I would hope you enjoyed computer science! Learn up on the arts, politics, etc in your spare time. These are the fun subjects.
I did undergrad CS @ Columbia as well. Of course you're not going to skate by as you would in insert-non-offensive-easy-major-name-here, but you learn a hell of a lot more. It's my personal belief that (especially in technical fields) you can't learn without putting a lot of hard work into something. But in doing so, you'll also keep yourself a step ahead of the curve in the job market. As per the article, plenty of people know how to code, not quite as many know CS.
Also personally I felt like this is an exceptionally competitive major (as are sciences in general) but I'm sure that's true for other schools as well. It's okay to get a B -- you're being compared against other brilliant people and plenty of people would be lucky to hire you. This is probably the one piece of knowledge I would have told myself 3 years ago when I started it.
Also personally I felt like this is an exceptionally competitive major (as are sciences in general) but I'm sure that's true for other schools as well. It's okay to get a B -- you're being compared against other brilliant people and plenty of people would be lucky to hire you. This is probably the one piece of knowledge I would have told myself 3 years ago when I started it.
I completely agree. It was more that I ended up going into finance, so GPA became a sticking point. It all turned out okay - I just wonder whether Columbia could make CS less brutal.
[deleted]
Code ≠ Computer Science, surely? ;)
engineering or applied physics are the correct degrees. i've never been impressed with CS guys. In my time they were washouts from the better degrees.
Ryan Carson is the next Steve Jobs
I think Dr. Nassim Taleb, author of Fooled By Randomness put it the best. Real knowledge is gained from tinkering, trial and error. A degree from a recognized academic institution is largely a social credit that is earned through memorization and the ability to recall and recite those references.
I studied Economics, so I had to figure out how to code (still at it) by relying on the internet and experimenting. Doing things that seemed interesting. I didn't study CS because at the time it seemed impossibly hard, so instead I focused on learning by reading books, experimenting.
I have friends with computing science degree yet they cannot code or have shipped software. Ironic that they cannot work as a software developer but it's the same reason I feel about my Economics degree (not working as an investment banker as I'd dreamed but thank god). Rather their theoretical knowledge in computing science degree seemed to limit their true potential to realize coding involves a different part of the brain then the ones used to pass final exams.
I often find the computing science questions in job interviews puzzling. How does the ability to recite an algorithm from the textbook translate into being able to ship code? How does one learn how to play a concerto by simply reading a book listing instructions and being asked to recite specific pages? It's my belief that coding (in terms of shipping software) is a highly organized and rational form of art. You are writing words but it's strictly limited to what the creators of the programming language have selected. How you form the sentences that the computer can understand really comes from trial and error until you've become familiar with it.
I studied Economics, so I had to figure out how to code (still at it) by relying on the internet and experimenting. Doing things that seemed interesting. I didn't study CS because at the time it seemed impossibly hard, so instead I focused on learning by reading books, experimenting.
I have friends with computing science degree yet they cannot code or have shipped software. Ironic that they cannot work as a software developer but it's the same reason I feel about my Economics degree (not working as an investment banker as I'd dreamed but thank god). Rather their theoretical knowledge in computing science degree seemed to limit their true potential to realize coding involves a different part of the brain then the ones used to pass final exams.
I often find the computing science questions in job interviews puzzling. How does the ability to recite an algorithm from the textbook translate into being able to ship code? How does one learn how to play a concerto by simply reading a book listing instructions and being asked to recite specific pages? It's my belief that coding (in terms of shipping software) is a highly organized and rational form of art. You are writing words but it's strictly limited to what the creators of the programming language have selected. How you form the sentences that the computer can understand really comes from trial and error until you've become familiar with it.
> I have friends with computing science degree yet they cannot code or have shipped software.
So do I, but CS degrees are not about memorization. At least not in North America or Europe. For my CS degree, I had to follow the math and deliver code. Toy code of course, but its a long way from "recalling and reciting references." If it had been about memorization I would probably have failed.
I also know people who say they got CS degrees through memorization and the ability to recall and recite references. They are Indian and Chinese. And they can code (even if they believe their degrees do not help.)
So do I, but CS degrees are not about memorization. At least not in North America or Europe. For my CS degree, I had to follow the math and deliver code. Toy code of course, but its a long way from "recalling and reciting references." If it had been about memorization I would probably have failed.
I also know people who say they got CS degrees through memorization and the ability to recall and recite references. They are Indian and Chinese. And they can code (even if they believe their degrees do not help.)
How the hell does this lead to stereotyping an entire race? Just so you know India and China have produced a large bulk of academics in computing science, across various educational institutions in North America and Europe. So I find your statement very arrogant and condescending.
Of course you can't memorize your way through a CS course requiring you to write code, but my point is exactly that, school doesn't teach you to actually be able to ship code or write something. It's something one must discover on own terms.
Of course you can't memorize your way through a CS course requiring you to write code, but my point is exactly that, school doesn't teach you to actually be able to ship code or write something. It's something one must discover on own terms.
> How the hell does this lead to stereotyping an entire race?
It does not. It is just an anecdote, from three people I know, who were required to memorize stuff, and found their coding ability did not contribute much.
> Just so you know India and China have produced a large bulk of academics in computing science, across various educational institutions in North America and Europe.
Yes, I did.
It does not. It is just an anecdote, from three people I know, who were required to memorize stuff, and found their coding ability did not contribute much.
> Just so you know India and China have produced a large bulk of academics in computing science, across various educational institutions in North America and Europe.
Yes, I did.
"Real knowledge is gained from tinkering, trial and error. A degree from a recognized academic institution is largely a social credit that is earned through memorization and the ability to recall and recite those references."
I find that quite insulting. This may be true if you go to some shoddy university that teaches things by rote and memorisation. I did an engineering degree where we had practical laboratory sessions that required you to build experience to get a good mark and the exams were not about remembering formula, you had to apply the knowledge that had been taught.
Experience cannot be taught. However, a good teacher will teach you a lot of useful skills that help you acquire experience quickly. I have learnt foreign languages where I have done a lot of studying at home but with much less opportunity to practice using those languages. When I visited the countries where they spoke those languages I struggled at first but it didn't take long to recognise the differences between my self practice and the real pronunciation/way of using a phrase.
Frequently we see these posts that say you don't need a degree to code. It's true, but if you have a good degree in programming then it's so much easier and probably your code will be much better because you know why things are done a certain way and you do them properly.
I find that quite insulting. This may be true if you go to some shoddy university that teaches things by rote and memorisation. I did an engineering degree where we had practical laboratory sessions that required you to build experience to get a good mark and the exams were not about remembering formula, you had to apply the knowledge that had been taught.
Experience cannot be taught. However, a good teacher will teach you a lot of useful skills that help you acquire experience quickly. I have learnt foreign languages where I have done a lot of studying at home but with much less opportunity to practice using those languages. When I visited the countries where they spoke those languages I struggled at first but it didn't take long to recognise the differences between my self practice and the real pronunciation/way of using a phrase.
Frequently we see these posts that say you don't need a degree to code. It's true, but if you have a good degree in programming then it's so much easier and probably your code will be much better because you know why things are done a certain way and you do them properly.
I understand that you might feel insulted at the thought that you're degree might have been all in vain, your experience at your school might have been special but as you've said it yourself, experience simply cannot be taught. School may hold lab sessions where you complete assignments "applying" which in some shape or form require you to recall facts transferred to you either through your faculty staff or books, and are told to understand, but with constraints set in place to evaluate you on a quantitative model among with the rest of your peers so that they may decide who is the top 10% vs the 90%.
The real world does not work like this, and often I find that academia prepares you for a world that doesn't behave or exist like the ones described through courses and lectures which are only aimed at grading and evaluating on some set of criteria. It's not necessarily an accurate meter of how you will adapt your knowledge and skills in the real world, I belive Nassim Taleb mentions the concept of 'empty suits', or so called experts who focus entirely on a constructed model of the world they are absolutely convinced will not change with lack of accounting for black swan events (an event that is unexpected and debunks a widely accepted belief, for example swans were thought to be white until the discover of black swans in Oceania) and basically the society attributes an irrational amount of trust and credit in those that have gone to the best of the schools in the best of what they do, not necessarily based on the inevitable nature of change (earth was flat, now it's round) upon random discovery that challenges what we've accepted as "facts".
It's a question of realizing you are being taught how to think and what to think by the institution that measures efficiency on a normal curve, instead of discovering the process and the target yourself.
Now of course, university life is much bigger than just lectures and learning, you meet so many interesting people, you learn that there are more questions than answers, and I think that is the best part. Maybe if you've gone to an Ivy League, you will find yourself surrounded with individuals of influential and powerful families which you can expand your social circle for future business and collaboration and that is all the more reason to go to one, but then I question the ability of someone with middle or lower class status to be genuinely accepted amongst those that have it all already.
The real world does not work like this, and often I find that academia prepares you for a world that doesn't behave or exist like the ones described through courses and lectures which are only aimed at grading and evaluating on some set of criteria. It's not necessarily an accurate meter of how you will adapt your knowledge and skills in the real world, I belive Nassim Taleb mentions the concept of 'empty suits', or so called experts who focus entirely on a constructed model of the world they are absolutely convinced will not change with lack of accounting for black swan events (an event that is unexpected and debunks a widely accepted belief, for example swans were thought to be white until the discover of black swans in Oceania) and basically the society attributes an irrational amount of trust and credit in those that have gone to the best of the schools in the best of what they do, not necessarily based on the inevitable nature of change (earth was flat, now it's round) upon random discovery that challenges what we've accepted as "facts".
It's a question of realizing you are being taught how to think and what to think by the institution that measures efficiency on a normal curve, instead of discovering the process and the target yourself.
Now of course, university life is much bigger than just lectures and learning, you meet so many interesting people, you learn that there are more questions than answers, and I think that is the best part. Maybe if you've gone to an Ivy League, you will find yourself surrounded with individuals of influential and powerful families which you can expand your social circle for future business and collaboration and that is all the more reason to go to one, but then I question the ability of someone with middle or lower class status to be genuinely accepted amongst those that have it all already.
I don't feel that my degree was in vain at all, you're trying to put words into my mouth. Lab sessions in which you must apply knowledge yourself give you the chance to investigate, experiment and see for yourself if what you were taught has any truth to it. The method of examining your success in a taught course does not necessarily determine what was learnt; some of us actually thought for ourselves.
What's with putting scare quotes on my use of the word applying ? I think you've got some issues here because you've deliberately written your reply to twist what I've said to fit your viewpoint. I feel sorry for you that you cannot see the difference to studying at university to learn and being brainwashed. Maybe that's what you did when you studied and now regret you didn't see the big picture ?
I'm not saying Nassim Taleb is wrong or that I am correct but you really should think for yourself a bit more and read around the subject rather than taking one particular view or the popular view as being the only view.
Come on, I mean in the real world who gives a damn about whether you went to an Ivy League or not if you really know your stuff.
What's with putting scare quotes on my use of the word applying ? I think you've got some issues here because you've deliberately written your reply to twist what I've said to fit your viewpoint. I feel sorry for you that you cannot see the difference to studying at university to learn and being brainwashed. Maybe that's what you did when you studied and now regret you didn't see the big picture ?
I'm not saying Nassim Taleb is wrong or that I am correct but you really should think for yourself a bit more and read around the subject rather than taking one particular view or the popular view as being the only view.
Come on, I mean in the real world who gives a damn about whether you went to an Ivy League or not if you really know your stuff.
There can also be a bit of an attitude, like the person is thinking "of course this is good, I went to Stanford". But maybe that's my imagination. Another explanation is that these people are just so good that they are able to read messy and convoluted code no problem, and us mortals need to step up our game.
On the other hand, these people would easily be able to reason about complex performance and security issues beyond me. I think that the hardcore CS issues are a science, while writing clean code in a web framework, browser, and API design is more of a craft.
If you hire too many computer scientists, your code base could be full of fascinating technical tricks, but creaky and hard to work with. Too many craftsmen, and you'll get stuck on simple problems. It's a balance.
EDIT: Downvotes? Please explain. Perhaps I am not able to fully comprehend the issues at hand.