Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!think!husc6!bu-cs!xylogics!world!madd
From: madd@world.std.com (jim frost)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education [engineering, mathematics, and computer science]
Message-ID: <1989Nov20.160513.19313@world.std.com>
Date: 20 Nov 89 16:05:13 GMT
References: <5481@nucleus.UUCP> <34788@regenmeister.uucp>
Organization: Software Tool & Die
Lines: 30

chrisp@regenmeister.uucp (Chris Prael) writes:
>From article <5481@nucleus.UUCP>, by dar@nucleus.UUCP (Dario Alcocer):
>> I'll have to disagree with you Chris.  I can think of two branches of
>> mathematics that have _everything_ to do with computing...
> 
>> Graph thoery

>First, while graph theory may have been used to explain them afterwards, 
>the data structures we use were generally cooked up without reference to 
>graph theory.

This is true, but this is not the way it should be.  It would have
been easier to cook up the data structures with some knowledge of
graph theory to begin with.  Dario's point still stands.

Consider another field.  Thomas Edison tried (how many?  1500 rings a
bell) compounds before finding that carbonized thread could be used as
a filament.  If he had spoken with a competent chemist at the time he
wouldn't even have had to look.  Thus Edison, if he had had a
background in chemistry, could have been more effective.  He made the
light bulb, but he did it the hard way.

I've found mathematics to be priceless in both practical and
theoretical computing.  It certainly can avoid doing things the hard
way, and we can avoid the mistakes of our predecessors who had to do
so because of a poor understanding of the problems at hand.

jim frost
software tool & die
madd@std.com