Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!pirates!bobm
From: bobm@pirates.UUCP (Bobm Atthews)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Theoretical computer scientists know a thing or two
Keywords: theory
Message-ID: <409@pirates.UUCP>
Date: 18 Sep 90 13:33:34 GMT
References: <392sis-a@massey.ac.nz> <12007@chaph.usc.edu>
Organization: Armstrong State College,  Savannah, GA
Lines: 33


In article <12007@chaph.usc.edu> wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes:
>As far as I have been able to tell, the concept of a "good" textbook on 
>"computer theory" is an oxymoron.  Since such books are invariably
>written by computer science theoreticians and computer science theoreticians 
>invariably know almost nothing about computers (as one would expect 
>from mathematicians) [deleted]

John, there are alot of theoreticians out there who know alot about
computers.  Just because someone has a concentration in one particular area
of computer science does not mean he/she is a dolt in others.  A good
school makes certain that its graduates are proficient in the 
important areas of computer science.

>                    the textbooks I have seen have all been dismally
>uninformed about the realities of computer technology (and even good
>theory for that matter).

Theory is *the* basis for all other branches in computer science: 
witness the usefulness of finite and push-down automata in designing 
compilers and syntax directed editors, the lambda calculus in 
programming language design and study, complexity theory as the 
motivator and prime driving force behind probabilistic and 
approximation algorithms (used in network design, mathematical 
software, operating system design, etc.)

In terms of being "uniformed about the realities of computer 
technology": from which branch of computer science did the 
concept of parallel computation get its impetus?  It wasn't 
the hackers or the engineers who first speculated that P<>NP.
-- 
Bob Matthews     ...!uunet!pirates!bobm
Armstrong State College, Savannah, GA