Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!regenmeister!chrisp
From: chrisp@regenmeister.uucp (Chris Prael)
Newsgroups: comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: CS education [engineering, mathematics, and computer science]
Message-ID: <34804@regenmeister.uucp>
Date: 21 Nov 89 19:11:54 GMT
References: <1989Nov20.160513.19313@world.std.com>
Sender: chrisp@regenmeister (Chris Prael)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Mtn View, CA
Lines: 51

From article <1989Nov20.160513.19313@world.std.com>, by madd@world.std.com (jim frost):
> 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 theory
 
>>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.

One of the things that I learned some years ago was that it was very
rare for a person to use the word "should" and have a useful connection
with reality at the same time.  Dario's point stands as well as the next
fantasy.
 
The tale of Edison and supposition about a chemist would be quite good
if it did not assume that the knowlege that resulted from Edison's work
were present before he started.  There were trained chemists and trained
physicists on Edison's staff!

> I've found mathematics to be priceless in both practical and
> theoretical computing.  

Some examples would be useful.  

> 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.

More mistakes and misunderstandings in computing and its development 
can be traced to pseudo-mathematical pretences than can be traced to 
mathematical ignorance.  Computing is being increasingly retarded by 
the uncomprehending aping of mathematics and mathematicians.  Bad
imitations of mathematics do more to obscure the problems at hand than
they do to clarify issues.  As did Dario, your argument raises the 
question of how deep or shallow your comprehension of either mathematics 
or computing are.

One thing that becomes particularly clear if one examines the development 
of the field over the last forty years is that the pace of innovation has 
decreased drastically in the last 20 to 25 years.  Kids come out of school 
with 25 year old techniques and ideas, believing that this stuff is brand 
new.  One can blame the slowing partly on the "maturing" of computing as a 
field.  More serious causes are the increasing reliance on rote
"learning" of techniques and playing at mathematics.