3 ms·
>I think there's a spectrum. People who optimize file systems, for example: that's on the "engineering" side of the spectrum. It requires a scientific approach
by alphaalpha101 9y ago
>I think there's a spectrum. People who optimize file systems, for example: that's on the "engineering" side of the spectrum. It requires a scientific approach to the research. It requires a very deep understanding of complex systems, formal reasoning, and emergent behavior.
Is it engineering then? Or is it scientific? Because they're not the same thing.
- TallGuyShort 9y agoHaving a scientific approach to one aspect of the field's literature is hardly saying you're a scientist. But then some people do refer to themselves as computer scientist. But we're really getting caught up in titles too much, IMO.
- alphaalpha101 9y agoProgrammers are not computer scientists, and computer science is no more equivalent to software engineering than physics is equivalent to civil engineering. Programmers are also not, in general, software engineers. It's not about getting 'caught up in titles' either, IMO. It's an important distinction. Computer science programmes get flack for not teaching practical software engineering skills, which is totally unreasonable. Just as we have physics programmes, we should have proper computer science programmes. You are allowed to do a physics degree and offer physics courses without people going 'but how do I design bridges??'. Yet every computer science lecturer will tell you they've had people ask 'but what does this have to do with making websites??'.
- TallGuyShort 9y agoI guess I'm just confused why you take issue with the phrase "a scientific approach to the research"? You don't see people applying the scientific method and academic rigor to papers in that part of the software field? That doesn't make them scientists, but I didn't claim it did.