The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
Reply-To: "Kevin Aylward"
From: "Kevin Aylward"
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: Career in computer science
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-Inktomi-Trace: public1-pete2-5-cust19.pete.broadband.ntl.com 1036054819 23216 22.214.171.124 (31 Oct 2002 09:00:19 GMT)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:00:12 -0000
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:00:20 GMT
"john jardine" wrote in message
> "Kevin Aylward" wrote in message
> > "john jardine" wrote in message
> > news:email@example.com...
> > > firstname.lastname@example.org (The little lost angel)
> > message news:<email@example.com>...
> > I don't agree that programming is an art form at all. The modern
> > of the word "engineering" is about using, mainly, known science
> > principles and applying them. For the most part programming is that,
> > computer engineering seems a better description to me. Art is
> > associate with new creations, and whilst I agree that both hardware
> > software have elements of creation, for the most part, its the same
> > shit, different day sort of thing in reality.
> > You can certainly teach programming. Again, for the *most* part, its
> > pretty routine stuff with 99% of it the same as the last project.
> > inputs output and processing. set up data structures....break the
> > problem down etc... and start typing.
> > > What the hell are they actually teaching! ;-)
> > > In the past 60 years only two things have come from the computer
> > > 'science' world that I would regard as specifically clever and
> > > of teaching.
> > > The first is the idea of neural nets.
> > I was not aware that idea came from computer science. My
> > that neural nets have been around for many millions of years:-)
> I was astounded that it was a philosopher who killed off any chance of
> our understanding them (in a mechanistic sense, of course).
> "Computer Engineering" would seem more apt to me as well and yes ...
> one certainly can teach the day to day, hack, 'mechanics' of
> programming. This though, I would not expect, to be the expected level
> of teaching of a university 'computer science' course. This is senior
> school rote learning stuff. All the concepts involved in programming
> are quite simple and can be picked up my most people given sufficient
> motivation. The 'sciences' are different here in that even the most
> basic concepts can often require considerable explanation and mental
> effort. The uni's are supposed to get people to 'think' and not train
> them to 'do' and I'm suggesting that it's impossible for them to teach
> the actual, crucial, life and death, 'thinking' bit needed by any
> programmer trying to get beyond their first line of code. Sure ...
> like any other subject, give them the basic tools to do the job but
> don't spend 3 years tooling them up, when they only actually need a
> couple of months. The artform is in the quality of their resulting
> output over the coming years and the learning will not have been
> taught or 'induced' at uni' it will come from within themselves. They
> either have it or do not.
> As a demo 'you yourself' example, just for analogy purposes ... (the
> details, I may have wrong, forgive me!)
> I notice (say) you have an interest in the deep fundamental nature of
> mathematics and also its application to day to day engineering
> problems. I notice also you've written a commercially viable,
> technically complex Spice prog'. The Spice prog has been mentioned at
> 100k+ lines of code so I say you are a programmer as well.
Well, as an analogue engineer, I would still say I'm a hack at code, but
I ship product, and that's what matters.
> Looking back, do you honestly feel the same respect for Kernighan and
> Ritchie as that of your teachers of quantum physics?.
I don't have much, if any respect for K and R at all. I don't think what
they done was novel or difficult. It was a piss easy natural
progression, where as the general theory of relativity was an extremely
difficult natural progression. Part of my justification for this is that
I independently "invented" the C++ construct of functions and data in a
struct (function pointers in reality) with probably only 2 months of C
programming experience. I was amazed when I first saw a bit of C++ code
having the same syntax as you call a function pointer in a struct. The
problem I was solving automatically lead to that "invention". In real
physics, thing are much harder. The obvious, often fails to work.
>In essence, do
> you have particular hard won intellectual respect for the worth or
> creators of any of the constructs or techniques that you day to day
> programme with?.
Not really. Although I did have "formal" courses in Pascal and basic 20
years ago, I am completely self taught in C and C++/MFC. In writing 100k
lines of code, I have not seen anything at all in other pieces of code
that I though were particular clever. I have seen much that I consider
to be dreadful though.
> Do you feel that the teachers of your programming skills did a good
> job with you?. It's a sneaky one this! but ... If your first answer is
> NO then programming is an artform!.
As noted, I am self tought. Even the offical courses I had were only the
bare basics of a 101 programming in my ee degree. Programming is
entirely logical. You can deduce what to do by only knowing the basics.
Its a bit like "all motion is relative" and "the speed of light is an
invariant", produces a staggering list of results.
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup