By: Ilya Lipovsky (lipovsky.delete@this.cs.bu.edu), February 18, 2008 1:27 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
JasonB (no@spam.com) on 2/17/08 wrote:
---------------------------
>Ilya Lipovsky (lipovsky@cs.bu.edu) on 2/15/08 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Interesting. Curiously, I work in the high performance numerical computing field,
>>and all of my (former, potential, and current) bosses, I mean the ones who write
>>optimized algorithms in assembly for a living - they all have *non-CS* education,
>>at least originally - all of them majoring in either physics or math (but with Ph.D.'s),
>>though I've seen one coming from chemistry.
>
>Heh -- there are various reasons for that; for older guys, it's because there really
>weren't many CS courses about during those days. When I was a student all of the
>oldest generation had PhDs in either physics or maths.
>
>For the younger generation, that might tell you more about the job prospects in their chosen area of study. :-)
>
I agree.
>Or, it could just be that numerical computing is an applied branch of computer
>science that is more useful in fields like physics than in computer science itself,
>and there's more motivation for a physicist to pick up the little bit of computer
>science they need to know to implement those algorithms effectively than there is
>for a computer scientist to do the reverse.
>
>>But I don't know if this can be generalized to saying that a CS Ph.D. is incompetent
>>when it comes to writing fast code. *If* this indeed is the case, then maybe it's
>>just because a lot of CS programs in academia focus more on higher level languages
>>and abstractions, omitting the engineering component. If I recall properly, one
>>of my CS professors joked "Computer Science is the only "science" that's not."
>
>It's a very broad field. Some parts are definitely science, others are definitely
>engineering. (One of my friends was doing a PhD so theoretical that some
>professors complained it should really have been a maths PhD. But that was only
>because they didn't understand his work. It was definitely appropriate for CS, in
>my view; they were just from the "applied" end of the spectrum.)
>
Yes, and some parts are definitely pure mathematics. Another one of my CS professors occasionally would need help from his daughters to use his PC and to establish a modem connection to ISP. He was a "computer scientist," but he actually was a mathematician, studying and proving theorems regarding computability, reductions, complexity, and general information theory. But, in my humble personal opinion he isn't quite a computer **scientist**.
By the way, my other post mentions briefly that I don't consider computer science to be science. I just don't know if studying man-made abstract structures can be considered a science. Science entails experimentation with subsequent discovery of natural laws with subsequent fitting of various phenomena to these laws. Physics and chemistry are prime examples.
Accordingly, *if* computer science is a science, it is as much a science as, say, number theory - there are always new abstract relationships and properties to be discovered/modeled, but they are "out there," in the abstract.
>I would no more expect someone on the science end of the spectrum to write really
>tight code than I would expect a professor in mechanical engineering to do a really
>good job servicing my car. That doesn't mean they're useless, just that you need
>to hire the right person for the job, and a lack of technical skill does not reflect
>on their ability otherwise. I didn't like the code that my aforementioned friend
>wrote, but I respected the fact that he implemented a Turing machine in the K&R
>C preprocessor (the ANSI one isn't Turing complete).
>
>
Very good points, yes!
---------------------------
>Ilya Lipovsky (lipovsky@cs.bu.edu) on 2/15/08 wrote:
>---------------------------
>>Interesting. Curiously, I work in the high performance numerical computing field,
>>and all of my (former, potential, and current) bosses, I mean the ones who write
>>optimized algorithms in assembly for a living - they all have *non-CS* education,
>>at least originally - all of them majoring in either physics or math (but with Ph.D.'s),
>>though I've seen one coming from chemistry.
>
>Heh -- there are various reasons for that; for older guys, it's because there really
>weren't many CS courses about during those days. When I was a student all of the
>oldest generation had PhDs in either physics or maths.
>
>For the younger generation, that might tell you more about the job prospects in their chosen area of study. :-)
>
I agree.
>Or, it could just be that numerical computing is an applied branch of computer
>science that is more useful in fields like physics than in computer science itself,
>and there's more motivation for a physicist to pick up the little bit of computer
>science they need to know to implement those algorithms effectively than there is
>for a computer scientist to do the reverse.
>
>>But I don't know if this can be generalized to saying that a CS Ph.D. is incompetent
>>when it comes to writing fast code. *If* this indeed is the case, then maybe it's
>>just because a lot of CS programs in academia focus more on higher level languages
>>and abstractions, omitting the engineering component. If I recall properly, one
>>of my CS professors joked "Computer Science is the only "science" that's not."
>
>It's a very broad field. Some parts are definitely science, others are definitely
>engineering. (One of my friends was doing a PhD so theoretical that some
>professors complained it should really have been a maths PhD. But that was only
>because they didn't understand his work. It was definitely appropriate for CS, in
>my view; they were just from the "applied" end of the spectrum.)
>
Yes, and some parts are definitely pure mathematics. Another one of my CS professors occasionally would need help from his daughters to use his PC and to establish a modem connection to ISP. He was a "computer scientist," but he actually was a mathematician, studying and proving theorems regarding computability, reductions, complexity, and general information theory. But, in my humble personal opinion he isn't quite a computer **scientist**.
By the way, my other post mentions briefly that I don't consider computer science to be science. I just don't know if studying man-made abstract structures can be considered a science. Science entails experimentation with subsequent discovery of natural laws with subsequent fitting of various phenomena to these laws. Physics and chemistry are prime examples.
Accordingly, *if* computer science is a science, it is as much a science as, say, number theory - there are always new abstract relationships and properties to be discovered/modeled, but they are "out there," in the abstract.
>I would no more expect someone on the science end of the spectrum to write really
>tight code than I would expect a professor in mechanical engineering to do a really
>good job servicing my car. That doesn't mean they're useless, just that you need
>to hire the right person for the job, and a lack of technical skill does not reflect
>on their ability otherwise. I didn't like the code that my aforementioned friend
>wrote, but I respected the fact that he implemented a Turing machine in the K&R
>C preprocessor (the ANSI one isn't Turing complete).
>
>
Very good points, yes!
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Multicore is unlikely to be the ideal answer. | Anders Jensen | 2008/02/14 03:24 AM |
And the links.. | Anders Jensen | 2008/02/14 03:25 AM |
Disappointing.. | Linus Torvalds | 2008/02/14 09:17 AM |
Disappointing.. | Mark Roulo | 2008/02/14 10:03 AM |
LOL (NT) | Linus Torvalds | 2008/02/14 04:43 PM |
Disappointing.. | David Patterson | 2008/02/15 10:53 AM |
Disappointing.. | Linus Torvalds | 2008/02/15 04:01 PM |
Disappointing.. | anon | 2008/02/15 07:54 PM |
Disappointing.. | JasonB | 2008/02/19 06:45 PM |
Disappointing.. | Ilya Lipovsky | 2008/02/22 05:27 PM |
Disappointing.. | Scott Bolt | 2008/03/16 10:36 AM |
Need for new programming languages | Vincent Diepeveen | 2008/02/19 05:18 AM |
Need for new programming languages | Pete Wilson | 2008/02/24 10:41 AM |
Disappointing.. | Zan | 2008/02/25 09:52 PM |
Disappointing.. | Robert Myers | 2008/02/19 08:47 PM |
Disappointing.. | Fred Bosick | 2008/02/22 05:38 PM |
Disappointing.. | Robert Myers | 2008/03/01 12:17 PM |
The limits of single CPU speed are here. | John Nagle | 2008/03/14 09:55 AM |
The limits of single CPU speed are here. | Howard Chu | 2008/03/15 12:02 AM |
The limits of single CPU speed are here. | slacker | 2008/03/15 07:08 AM |
The limits of single CPU speed are here. | Howard Chu | 2008/03/17 12:47 AM |
The limits of single CPU speed are here. | slacker | 2008/03/17 09:04 AM |
And the links.. | Howard Chu | 2008/02/14 11:58 AM |
I take some of that back | Howard Chu | 2008/02/14 12:55 PM |
And the links.. | Jesper Frimann | 2008/02/14 01:02 PM |
And the links.. | Ilya Lipovsky | 2008/02/15 01:24 PM |
And the links.. | iz | 2008/02/17 09:55 AM |
And the links.. | JasonB | 2008/02/17 06:09 PM |
And the links.. | Ilya Lipovsky | 2008/02/18 12:54 PM |
And the links.. | JasonB | 2008/02/18 09:34 PM |
And the links.. | Thiago Kurovski | 2008/02/19 06:01 PM |
And the links.. | iz | 2008/02/20 09:36 AM |
And the links.. | Ilya Lipovsky | 2008/02/20 02:37 PM |
And the links.. | JasonB | 2008/02/20 05:28 PM |
And the links.. | JasonB | 2008/02/17 05:47 PM |
And the links.. | Ilya Lipovsky | 2008/02/18 01:27 PM |
And the links.. | JasonB | 2008/02/18 09:00 PM |
And the links.. | JasonB | 2008/02/19 02:14 AM |
And the links.. | Ilya Lipovsky | 2008/02/20 03:29 PM |
And the links.. | JasonB | 2008/02/20 05:14 PM |
And the links.. | Ilya Lipovsky | 2008/02/21 10:07 AM |
And the links.. | Howard Chu | 2008/02/14 12:16 PM |
And the links.. | Jukka Larja | 2008/02/15 02:00 AM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | David Kanter | 2008/02/15 10:41 AM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | Howard Chu | 2008/02/15 11:49 AM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | David Kanter | 2008/02/15 02:48 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | Howard Chu | 2008/02/17 04:42 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | nick | 2008/02/17 08:15 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | Howard Chu | 2008/02/18 03:23 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | nick | 2008/02/18 09:03 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | Howard Chu | 2008/02/19 12:39 AM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | rcf | 2008/02/19 11:44 AM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | Howard Chu | 2008/02/19 02:25 PM |
Average programmers | anon | 2008/02/18 11:40 AM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | JasonB | 2008/02/15 07:02 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | JasonB | 2008/02/15 07:02 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | Dean Kent | 2008/02/15 07:07 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | Ray | 2008/02/20 02:20 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | JasonB | 2008/02/20 05:11 PM |
Berkeley View on Parallelism | FritzR | 2008/02/24 02:08 PM |
rubyinline, etc. | nordsieck | 2008/02/22 02:38 PM |
rubyinline, etc. | JasonB | 2008/02/23 04:53 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | nordsieck | 2008/03/02 12:40 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Michael S | 2008/03/02 01:49 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Dean Kent | 2008/03/02 06:41 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Michael S | 2008/03/02 07:19 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Dean Kent | 2008/03/02 07:30 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | JasonB | 2008/03/02 04:26 PM |
rubyinline, etc. | JasonB | 2008/03/02 05:01 PM |
rubyinline, etc. | Anonymous | 2008/03/03 01:11 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | JasonB | 2008/03/03 08:40 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Foo_ | 2008/03/09 08:59 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | JasonB | 2008/03/10 12:12 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Gabriele Svelto | 2008/03/10 01:22 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | JasonB | 2008/03/10 03:35 AM |
C++ for beginners | Michael S | 2008/03/10 04:16 AM |
C++ for beginners | JasonB | 2008/03/10 05:35 AM |
C++ | Michael S | 2008/03/10 03:55 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Linus Torvalds | 2008/03/03 10:35 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Dean Kent | 2008/03/03 01:35 PM |
rubyinline, etc. | JasonB | 2008/03/03 02:57 PM |
rubyinline, etc. | Dean Kent | 2008/03/03 07:10 PM |
rubyinline, etc. | Michael S | 2008/03/04 12:53 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Dean Kent | 2008/03/04 06:51 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Michael S | 2008/03/04 07:29 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Dean Kent | 2008/03/04 07:53 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Michael S | 2008/03/04 10:20 AM |
rubyinline, etc. | Dean Kent | 2008/03/04 01:13 PM |
read it. thanks (NT) | Michael S | 2008/03/04 03:31 PM |
efficient HLL's | Patrik Hägglund | 2008/03/04 02:34 PM |
efficient HLL's | Wes Felter | 2008/03/04 08:33 PM |
efficient HLL's | Patrik Hägglund | 2008/03/05 12:23 AM |
efficient HLL's | Michael S | 2008/03/05 01:45 AM |
efficient HLL's | Wilco | 2008/03/05 04:34 PM |
efficient HLL's | Howard Chu | 2008/03/05 06:11 PM |
efficient HLL's | Wilco | 2008/03/06 01:27 PM |
efficient HLL's | anon | 2008/03/05 07:20 AM |
And the links.. | Groo | 2008/02/17 03:28 PM |
And the links.. | Vincent Diepeveen | 2008/02/18 01:33 AM |