Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!chaph.usc.edu!aludra.usc.edu!wilber
From: wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Textbook for Intro. Comp. Theory course
Summary: Theory vs. Practicality
Message-ID: <12237@chaph.usc.edu>
Date: 28 Sep 90 07:53:28 GMT
References: <9627@ubc-cs.UUCP> <12037@chaph.usc.edu> <39153@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Sender: news@chaph.usc.edu
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 62
Nntp-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <39153@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> martin@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (david l. martin) writes:

>You really seem to be mixing several issues up together.  As to the assertion
>that computational mathematics is really of minor value or of minor
>practical importance, if you really think that, you're just reflecting
>the perspective of your own narrow niche of the computer world.  

If you think that theoretical mathematics is of major practical importance
then you muct be in some kind of narrow niche yourself.  I have worked in
the real practical world of computer science of a long time and I have spent
a lot of time in CS classrooms.  I have worked on real-time data acquisition
and control systems, decision support systems, compilers, software tools,
graphics, publishing tools, simulation, and office automation tools.  I am
not burried in a little niche.  I have worked in the areas most directly
affected by CS theory and I am telling you that it is a relatively minor
factor in making things happen.  I don't think it's useless.  I think
it is viewed with a warped perspective by academics in their little niches.

>As one
>or 2 others have pointed out, mathematical models and analyses have had
>a lot of immensely important applications, including applications in
>language design, compiler design, system and network design, and
>design of software applications as well.

No, it have made minor contributions to some applications in some of 
those fields.

>As to all this business about intellectual posturing and posing as computer
>scientists, what makes you think the field isn't big enough for the
>mathematicians AND the real-world-system types?  Why does it have to
>be one or the other?  

I don't think it does.  I think that mathematical theory has it's place.
I just think that that place is not at the center of computer science.
Many of the more mathematically inclined "computer scientists" have been
hear to say that computer science is just a branch of mathematics.  I say
"Bull".  A good computer scientist has a good understanding of electronics,
software engineering and mathematical theory.  I think that academic
"computer science" is completely skewed toward math and away from software
engineering and electronics.  When did you last read anything about electronics
in the ACM journal?  When did you read anything intelligent there about
software engineering?  What percentage of academicians do you think are 
really competent software engineers?  My experience is that it's 10% or
less.

>Finally, why have you forced yourself to read through hundreds of 
>mathematical papers that don't interest you?  

Because I keep hoping to find something useful there.  I know that 
theory has SOME value and occasionally, the universities produce some bits
of useful theory.  The problem is that so many of the math guys don't 
understand the real world, they spend a great deal of time talking about
issues that don't really matter except to other math guys.  I find much 
more useful theoretical and practical information in Dr. Dobb's Journal
and Computer Language than in anything the ACM produces.  That's why 
I don't read the ACM stuff anymore.

>Can't you just accept that they are of interest to others?

I'm not saying "You can't study X.".  I am saying that X isn't very important
in the real world.  Pretending that this is otherwise doesn't help students
and doesn't advance the state of technology.