Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!mcnc!duke!crm
From: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Exams vs. Programming Assignments
Message-ID: <6379@duke.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-Oct-85 13:33:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: duke.6379
Posted: Tue Oct  1 13:33:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 4-Oct-85 03:17:16 EDT
References: <823@dataio.Dataio.UUCP> <6358@duke.UUCP> <10497@ucbvax.ARPA>
Reply-To: crm@duke.UUCP (Charlie Martin)
Organization: Duke University
Lines: 54

In article <10497@ucbvax.ARPA> tedrick@ucbernie.UUCP (Tom Tedrick) writes:
>>>Computer Science is Algorithms and Theory. [ ... lots deleted ... ]
>
>>Hah! [ ... lots deleted ... ] The language of and reason for computer
>>science is programming -- and computer scientists who can't write
>>good programs are as useless as English teachers who can't write an
>>proper and grammatical term paper.
>
>My impression is that, at the graduate level, ability to program
>is regarded as an essentially trivial skill (like knowing your
>multiplication tables). 

    I agree that that is the way ability to program is *reguarded*
    at the graduate level.  I disagree that that is the *correct*
    way for it to be reguarded.

>There are lots of undergrads who can
>write good programs, but not so many who understand theory.
>In grad school, good programmers are "a dime a dozen".

    Good programmers are not a dime a dozen anywhere!  (At least, if
    there is a school where they are a dime a dozen, write and tell
    me -- my wife'll take a dozen herself for her company.)  People who
    can write barely adequate programs are a dime a dozen -- and
    computer science departments turn out more every year.

>Good thinkers and theoreticians are not so common.

   No question there: but I suggest that good thinking (at least about
   programs) and good programming are not mutually exclusive.

   But until we are talking about developing people *only* for academic
   or research Ph.D.'s, we are talking about developing people who are
   going to be programming for a living.  They don't know how.  We are
   cheating them.

>
>Computer *SCIENCE* is not the same as computer *PROGRAMMING*.
>
>This is somewhat analagous to the situation in Mathematics:
>being a good Mathematician has little or nothing to do with
>ability to do calculations (believe it or not ...)

   and a good thing, too.  I didn't begin to do well in mathematics
   until I got past the courses which required calculation.

   I'll stick with my analogy, thanks:  computer programming is as
   central and essential a part of computer science as reading and
   writing English is a part of English-as-academic-study.  (Along
   with other things, no question.)
-- 

			Charlie Martin
			(...mcnc!duke!crm)


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com