Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!coatta
From: coatta@utcsri.UUCP (Terry Coatta)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Role of computer science
Message-ID: <3525@utcsri.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Oct-86 15:27:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsri.3525
Posted: Fri Oct 24 15:27:07 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Oct-86 16:56:49 EDT
References: <10529@cca.UUCP>
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Lines: 63

> 
> 	I find your final conclusion depressing because it tells
> me that (a) you don't know very much about industry, (b you are
> hostile to it on a basis of ignorance, and (c) you are probably
> passing your misconceptions onto your students.  Perhaps I am doing
> you a major injustice; please feel free to correct me [flames optional].
> However that is the impression I am given.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]
> 	For Cheryl :-)

It is true that I do not know much about the industry (nor will I likely
ever since I rather like the academic environment).  However, I did not
exagerrate what we were told.  The people we had in to talk to us were
very blunt -- we want programmers that DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD -- NO room
for personal freedom.  Most of the programming that I do is with groups
of people though, and so I do have a feeling for being part of a larger
team.  Even in the case where I was not the leader of the group, there
was always the feeling that all members of the team were welcome to 
(encouraged to) consider different ways of handling the problem at hand,
and that their suggestions would be listened to.

As for passing on misconceptions to students I say nothing about industry
at all -- I confine myself to trying to teach them how to approach
problems, and how to translate their solutions into good code.  You noted
that there were diffrences between the academic style of programming and
the "production quality" style of programming, and I agree by and large
with your distinctions.  I'm even willing to go so far as to agree
that academics shoulld be aware of the differences, but NOT that they
should be required to teach the other style.  In computer science
what matters is that you can think up a good solution to a problem,
and that you can translate that into good code, not that you can
produce a product that XXX company can make a fortune on.  If part of
the problem you are given is that you have to work in teams, then part
of a good solution is to ensure that your code integrates nicely
with the system.  Similarly if part of the problem description stipulates
that a good user interface is required, then that must be part of the
solution.  These are not global concerns to be applied to everything
the student does -- it they tried we'd never have enough time to get
around to things that do matter for academics, like analyzing algorithms,
doing the group theory related to numerical analysis, doing the
probability theory related to LANs, etc.  

I think the large difference between our viewpoints is that you want
computer science to be like engineering -- fill them up with the
formulas, rules and techniques that will produce practical results --
I want scientists and experimenters -- give them the background
and the theory they'll need to explore the unknown territory of
computer science.  The world needs both types of people, but
to force the values of one grop on the other is wasting peoples
time, and I think its pretty clear which set of values I think
belong at the university.

Terry Coatta
Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4
{allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!coatta

-- Oh dear, I think you'll find reality's on the blink again

             Marvin the Paranoid Android