3 ms·

I disagree. Computer science is supposed to be a "pure" field, like mathematics. It is not meant to teach any specific technology, language, library, developmen

I disagree. Computer science is supposed to be a "pure" field, like mathematics. It is not meant to teach any specific technology, language, library, development model, etc. You can (and should) pick that up on your own. These things change so often anyway--you shouldn't pay a school to learn such simple things. Maybe industry and market forces want a more software engineering-type degree; the people who want that kind of job should pursue such. In any case, there is still an unquestionable need for pure CS in academia and research.

beej71 16y ago
Fine point: I didn't try to define "CS". We agree that a school shouldn't teach a breadth of languages and frameworks du jour. But I still think a good University program will teach both theory and how to program in the real world. Is that so wrong? CS students must take spoken language and physics courses, as well, and somehow that doesn't affect the purity of their CS education. Maybe the school doesn't call software engineering "CS" (like so many do), but there should at least be the option to learn these concepts somewhere. There must be shoulders to stand upon. I trust you'll find it impossible to argue that all the knowledge regarding software production discovered in the past 50 years is obvious to every Computer Science PhD, let alone neophyte.