Invisible wrote:
> As you probably all know by now, I hold an honours degree in Computer 
> Science. (Upper-second class, no less.)
> 
> As far as I can tell, whoever created this cause was of the opinion that 
> "software" is a construct for storing, processing and retreiving 
> business data. In other words, you have a UI at the front (possibly 
> web-based), a large database at the back, and some complex business 
> logic in the middle.
> 
> The idea that there might exist "software" which doesn't fit this model 
> appears to have not occurred to anybody here. For example:
> 
> - Embedded software.
> - Device drivers.
> - Computer games.
> - Mathematical moddeling.
> - Signal processing.
> - Artificial intelligence.
> 
> None of these really fit the world-view described above. Most of them 
> don't usually involve any kind of database. Device drivers usually don't 
> have a *user* interface of any kind. Computer games might be 3-tier, but 
> it's a hell of a lot different to a stock control system! And DSP and AI 
> are 90% mathematics.
> 
> Given the world-view above, it should come as no surprise that we 
> learned about things like project management, object-oriented analysis 
> and design, UML, CASE tools, relational databases, SQL, HTML, CSS, Java, 
> JavaScript, XSLT, TCP/IP, double-entry book keeping (I'm not making this 
> up), a little bit of management theory (Taylor, Maslow, etc.), and 
> systems testing.
> 

IMHO, for computer science that sounds right.  You learn about 
programming at a higher level.  You are taught the tools to write 
programs typically for the end user.  Business is a very large area that 
uses this type of talent - and programming in that environment typically 
involves data storage.


You are right, the areas that you list also use software, and you have 
been taught a lot of the logic and thinking to be able to program in 
those areas.  But a lot of those areas also require specialized 
instruction - hence degrees in electrical engineering, computer 
engineering, math.

The areas you listed do require programming, but usually from other 
areas of expertise - computer engineering, electrical engineering, math, 
etc...




> There were also two modules taught by Mr Apathy. Mr Apathy was tasked 
> with teaching us about computer hardware, and later about operating 
> systems. In Mr Apathy's opinion, knowing about binary is "pointless" 
> because "the computer will do it all for you anyway". He believed that 
> "20 years ago it might have been necessary to know this stuff, but in 
> the modern world you're really never going to need this information. But 
> it *is* in the exam, so I have to teach it to you." I cannot tell you 
> what an inspirational motivation for learning this was.
> 

To a point he is right - programming in upper level languages does not 
require a knowledge of the very low level happenings.  That's part of 
why they are there - you can program faster without having to worry 
about as much as it is taken care of for you (e.g. garbage collection)

In a sense it would be like teaching you about electron flow in a diode 
and FET so that you can type the word 'print' better.

At level do you stop digressing?

He decided that binary is not really necessary.
He could have presented his case better so that it wasn't so discouraging.

> 
> Actually, I say only one formula... some of the final year optional 
> modules I did also had a little more math in them than that.
> 
> 
> This module did involve some non-trivial math. It was so badly-explained 
> that I couldn't possibly tell you how advanced it was. Much of the 
> module revolved around feed-forward ANNs trained by back-propogation, 
> which is a kind of "grædiɛnt æsɛnt miθæd". For back-propogation to work, 
> the transfer function needs to be non-linear. And there was something 
> about a "næbl" operator.
> 
> IIRC, the part about generic algorithms lasted about an hour.
> 
> It's a pitty really, because it seems like a really interesting subject...
> 
> 

Computer Science is not about math, it's about laying down code, user 
interface, and bringing it together.
The thought is that if you need math, someone will show what they need.




> 
> So anyway, that's what *I* did during my degree. Anybody out there do 
> anything more interesting?
> 

To heck with my course work.
Built and raced 2 solar powered racing cars.
Think 70mph and 'for highway use'.


> 
> 
> My mum keeps telling me I should do a mathematics course. Personally, 
> I'm not sure where the hell I'd get the time or the money from. (It's 
> not exactly cheap.) I guess it *is* kind of amazing that I know about 
> the Laplace transform, given that I have never at any point in my life 
> been "taught" anything beyond simple arithmetic.
> 
> Similarly, I know about how to wire logic gates together to make 
> interesting devices. And I know about Dijkstra's shunting algorithm. 
> (Unfortunately, I'm never sure exactly how to spell the name though!)

It sounds like you think very technically.  What is you interest level 
in electronics.  There's plenty of heavy lifting math there ;-)

Have you ever wanted to build your own 'light blinker' (a device that 
does something that you made it do it)?  This can be done without lots 
of heavy lifting math.



Later... Tom

Post a reply to this message