realbasic-nug
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OT] Why "Computer Science" - was Re: Packed Encoding Rules

To: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
Subject: Re: [OT] Why "Computer Science" - was Re: Packed Encoding Rules
From: "Theodore H. Smith" <delete at elfdata dot com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:34:52 +0000
Delivered-to: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <mailman dot 9879 dot 1204232850 dot 9216 dot realbasic-nug at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
> On Feb 28, 2008, at 10:42 AM, Theodore H. Smith wrote:
>
>> And why do they feel the need to call it computer science? Do they
>> call chemistry "chemistry science"? It's like they feel software-
>> development isn't good enough, so they have to tack on a little tag  
>> to
>> make it sound more impressive.
>
> I actually know the answer to that from a Georgia Tech physics
> professor that I had in 1977.  When you take a Physics or Chemistry
> course, you're learning Physics or Chemistry.  When you take a
> CompSci course, you are learning the "Science" of Computers.  The
> premise is to provide a broad range of knowledge that can be applied
> to computers in general.  Granted, most modern courses should be
> named "Windows Science" because of their Windows-centric tilt.
> Because computers are changing on an almost hourly basis, to learn a
> "Computer" would be quite limiting.  So, while you were obviously
> being cynical, there really IS a reason for the course name.


That makes no sense... To learn a "chemical" would take forever too...

It's simply because they wanted to make their field sound legitimate,  
because they felt insecure about their status as "real scientists".

Honestly... if it's not a real science then just be happy with it.

I suppose computer science, or software-development anyhow, is a  
science, when it comes to theories, and things proven with logic.  
After all, all science is based on logic.

So things like basic data structures, such as linked lists, arrays,  
matrixes, trees, and all that... are theory based.

I happen to do a lot of work that many people would call "computer  
science". I'm actually inventing right now, as part of my Elfdata  
plugin, a highly advanced algorithm for doing fuzzy string searches. I  
hope that my invention will be useful for biologists, although I don't  
know yet if it will have any benefit.

I don't call what I do computer science, cos it sounds stupid.

I do call myself an inventor, and a scientist. But I don't say I do  
computer-science, just software-development.

I don't feel so insecure about my status that I need to add neat words  
or get fancy bits of paper with "Degree" written on it to make me feel  
better about myself. If I do good work, my work should speak for itself.

--
http://elfdata.com/plugin/
"String processing, done right"


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>