Computer Science is not programming. Software Engineering is not programming. Stop trying to make it so.

[yoursecretninja]

Quote:

And it pains me how many people don't realize that.

It pains me how black and white some people's views can be. Computer science draws from MANY disciplines; not just math. And like MOST sciences, computer science involves both theory and practice.

I'd say people wanting to learn how to program would be well served to go to either a university or a college. Their choice of institution and program of study should be influenced by what best fits their needs not some rigid world-view where every subject and person can be neatly divided into distinct categories.

Here's an enlightening quote from the 2008 computer science curricula update from the ACM http://www.acm.org//education/curricula/ComputerScience2008.pdf :

Quote:

Computer science continues to draw its foundations from a wide variety of disciplines. Undergraduate study of computer science requires students to utilize concepts from many different fields. All computer science students must learn to integrate theory and practice, to recognize the importance of abstraction, and to appreciate the value of good engineering design.

You can checkout related documents at: http://www.acm.org/education/curricula-recommendations[/url]

[mirhagk]

Oh computer science pretty much unites every field, as we need nearly every field to do different things.

[[Gandalf]]

md @ 2012-01-26, 10:26 am wrote:

Increasing student enrolment for the sole purpose of increasing revenue (while at the same time removing or reducing important parts of a curriculum) are not signs of a quality institution. Schools (universities or colleges) which pursue tuition dollars invariably have worse programming (ie. courses) then those which don't. That is why Waterloo for instance has maintained their reputation - while they may teach more programming then they used to, the theory is still the focus.

Yet Waterloo still has courses for all the things I listed (concurrency, systems programming, networking, testing, graphics) which, while taught with a focus on theory, are in no way computer science (very loosely if you stretch networks to include graph theory for example). This is even with the advantage Waterloo has that lets them defer learning practical things during co-op terms. Their reputation has little to do with how much computer science theory is taught.

md @ 2012-01-26, 10:26 am wrote:

At the same time, informed high school students who knew what the differences were between programs would be much better for society.

There are still plenty of informed high school students making the "optimal" choice for themselves. It's just that the differences between the programs aren't what you would like them to be. Sure, the situation you propose is theoretically plausible, but it will never happen for exactly the reason mirhagk gives. College degrees just don't have the value that (some) university degrees do, and often times attempting to finish college early and start working just makes things harder for yourself (I know a few people who went to college and transferred to university, not because they were missing the theory, but because college was too easy or the level of learning was too low).

md @ 2012-01-26, 10:26 am wrote:

Very little development work requires anything beyond some basic linear algebra or calculus. Your example of 3D games for instance is more about managing data then performing any advanced math. Hell, writing a 3d game involves *very little* math beyond basic calculus and some algebra. Anything that you need beyond that you should be able to learn on your own - using the skills you developed in college *or* university.

Physics engines can get pretty complicated.

[mirhagk]

If you think physics engines are difficult, try to look into modern AI's. I read a paper about how a game was using emotion in their AI, which is a pretty necessary thing if you think about it.

Also for something like character construction in skyrim, do you have any idea how much work has to be done turning abstract values into physical shapes?

[md]

How many people do you think are writing physics engines? How many people do you think are writing AIs? Compare that to the number of people automatic business tasks, or writing systems monitors, or publishing systems, or writing infrastructure code.

I would also like to point out that Waterloo's co-op reputation isn't based on the quality of their CS students (who have a iffy reputation in many places), but on the Engineering program.

As for Waterloo's program offerings concurrency, systems programming, networking, testing, and graphics are actually all very useful for teaching theory through application. Concurrency alone is hugely complicated, systems programming is a challenge due to concurrency and hardware (hardware is horrible, always behaving erratically...); networking and testing are admittedly less theoretical and are likely more for practical skills. Graphics could go either way depending on the course specifics.

[[Gandalf]]

md @ 2012-01-26, 10:27 pm wrote:

As for Waterloo's program offerings concurrency, systems programming, networking, testing, and graphics are actually all very useful for teaching theory through application.

I was thinking more along the lines of theoretical computer science (definition), but fine. Maybe it's applying theory through application which enables a good (great) programmer. Either way, the value of the university degree is there, and it's certainly not going to be replaced by colleges. If anything, it looks to me like the trend is in making universities even more applied.

[md]

[quote="[Gandalf] @ 2012-01-26, 10:55 pm"]

md @ 2012-01-26, 10:27 pm wrote:

As for Waterloo's program offerings concurrency, systems programming, networking, testing, and graphics are actually all very useful for teaching theory through application.

I was thinking more along the lines of theoretical computer science (definition), but fine. Maybe it's applying theory through application which enables a good (great) programmer. Either way, the value of the university degree is there, and it's certainly not going to be replaced by colleges. If anything, it looks to me like the trend is in making universities even more applied.[/quote]

Oh, I certainly believe they have value and you are correct that a university degree is to a certain extent less valuable then a university degree (but you'd be surprised at how small that difference is - 100% of my graduating class was employed at graduation). My point is that the theory is important, but not what most people need or want, and the sooner they realised that the less I'd have to put up with idiots in my classes.

What can I say, I'm selfish and sick of people asking questions too dumb for even the prof to believe.

[Cool.Breeze]

Grow up kid, stop being so conceited.

[md]

Cool.Breeze @ 2012-01-27, 10:40 pm wrote:

Grow up kid, stop being so conceited.

I'm not conceited - that's a flaw and I don't have any flaws.

[Velocity]

people, people, look what this has brought us to, lets all just relax and drink some hot cocoa and live together happily. Why cant we be friends. Why cant we be friends, why cant we just be friends (x10)

[copthesaint]

md @ Sat Jan 28, 2012 wrote:

Cool.Breeze @ 2012-01-27, 10:40 pm wrote:

Grow up kid, stop being so conceited.

I'm not conceited - that's a flaw and I don't have any flaws.

lol Is that confidence or arrogance? So often are those confused...
I for once knew what computer science was, so |I specifically applied for college programming courses and robotics. I will have fun where ever I may end up