Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!watcgl!jjboritz
From: jjboritz@watcgl.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: What is Computer Science?
Message-ID: <2398@watcgl.waterloo.edu>
Date: Wed, 18-Nov-87 10:32:45 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2398
Posted: Wed Nov 18 10:32:45 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 02:32:13 EST
References: <933@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> <3620002@wdl1.UUCP>
Reply-To: jjboritz@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Jim Boritz)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 52

In article <3620002@wdl1.UUCP> lmurray@wdl1.UUCP (Lance Murray) writes:
>I believe the fundemental problem in defining what Computer Science is,
>or is not, is that the major is actual fragmented into many smaller
>disciplines. I would divide CS into three distinct groups: programmer,
>software engineer, computer scientist. Here is *my* understanding of each
>of these professions:
>    programmer: a coder. This person takes specifications and develops the
>corresponding code.
>    software engineer: takes the "tools of the trade" (abstraction, information
>hiding, algorithms, data structures, etc.) and *builds* new system.
>    computer scientist: developer of new languages and theories.

I agree with this division.  The chnunks are large enough to cover more than
a trivial amount of information.  They are distict enough to present a
viable classification.

>
>I know there is a lot left out in these classifications, but people must be
>aware of the difference. Should there be seperate majors for all of these fields?

Definitely not! If you view the three areas mentioned as sort of a heirarchy
then each level builds upon the knowledge of the previous level.  They may
be distinct areas, but they are not disjoint.  A computer scientist without
the knowledge of programming requirements and constraints would have a rough
time developing a new language.

>I do not think that is the answer. A definition of *what* Computer Science is
>will not help define what a computer scientist does. All the demand for CS
>people is really the industries misunderstanding of what our higher institutions

That is exactly right.  You don't need a "Computer Scientist" to write code
or patch bugs or perform system maintenance.  If a company thinks it needs a
computer scientist to generate code, then they are making a big mistake, and
many of them do.  However, this problem is confounded by the fact that many
people enter university and receive the instruction necessary for becoming a
computer scientist, simply to get a better / higher paying job as a coder.
The companies feel that these people must make better coders due to their
"superior" :-) training.  I don't believe that this is true.  In fact since
these people are likely to concentrate more on theories than on coding, it
is likely that they would make poorer coders than those that spend most of
their time coding.

>are generating in this day and age. An ad for a "Computer Science" major
>could me almost anything these days, from micro code to AI. Industry employment
>personnel must become more in tune with what is available.
>
>	-lance murray-
>/* Usual disclaimers here . */

	--Jim Boritz

	{allegra,decvax,utzoo,clyde}!watmath!watcgl!jjboritz