3 ms·

I am a CS PhD student, and I have to say, I really can't stand lists like this. First, why is Babbage's work on the Analytical Engine included? No computer scie

I am a CS PhD student, and I have to say, I really can't stand lists like this. First, why is Babbage's work on the Analytical Engine included? No computer scientist I know cares about such things, except perhaps as a historical curiosity. Do all modern architects need to read up on the Pyramids? No. Second, I am skeptical that there are papers that all computer scientists need to read. Does a computer vision expert need to go read a paper on computational complexity? Does a roboticist need to understand lambda calculus? This list is pretentious and silly, IMHO.

tshaddox 6y ago
It’s just hyperbolic. It’s abundantly clear that the intention is to share a list of papers that a lot of people who are interested in computer science might find interesting.
bawolff 6y ago
To me, it sounds like a history list basically. Understanding the past so we know how we got to today. Does anyone "need" to read anything? No. Would you be enriched by it? Maybe. I persinally think its an interesting reading list. More generally, this seems like an undergrad course. Isn't the point of an undergrad degree to give broad foundational instruction that can be further built on? What better way then to see how we got to the present. > Does a roboticist need to understand lambda calculus? Reading a single paper and understanding something is very different. Understanding it, is a bit much. Knowing the very vaugest of an introduction to the subject by reading a single very foundational paper, they might benefit from that. At the very least, they should know how to read and understand a paper in an adjacent field to their own (this is an undergrad class after all)
Jtsummers 6y ago
While the (original HN) title may have been a bit on the pretentious side, the linked syllabus explains the rationale for the course: > This course examines papers every computer scientist should have read, from the 1930s to the present. It is meant to be a synthesizing experience for advanced students in computer science: a way for them to see the field as a whole, not through a survey, but by reliving the experience of its creation. The idea is to create a unified view of the field of computer science, for students who already know something about it, by replaying its entire evolution at an accelerated frame rate. Which is not a bad idea. Many computer scientists, programmers, and software engineers have an ahistorical understanding of CS. See the discussion the other day when someone claimed "software engineering" is only 20-30 years old. They aren't a one-off, though probably not the majority. A significant number of people in this field don't know the history of it: how it was developed, what dead ends were hit, what dead ends turned out not to be dead ends (often once we got fast enough hardware), etc. Similar to the ethics course in many engineering/science curricula, it's something that seems a bit superfluous but turns out to add a great deal of value if students can be bothered to explore it.
tchalla 6y ago
The objectives mentioned are >>> Learning Objectives: >>> To identify the major subfields of computer science, their intellectual family tree, and the major figures and works of their birth and infancy. To be able to place current computer science research in the context of its intellectual lineage. To be able to present to an audience of educated but non-specialist computer scientists some of the major ideas of computer science in a way that is succinct and easy to understand. To be able to critique constructively similar presentations by others.
mrbreeze 6y ago
Of course modern architects need to know and learn about the pyramids. The structure both from a mechanics and static stability perspective are a marvel for building architecture. They are not drywall hanging workers to only care about learning the available drywall types they will use tomorrow for their construction project. If you are a CS PhD student the expectation is that you become a scholar in the discipline. This vocational attitude about 'where will I need this' is perhaps an indication that you don't quite understand what a doctorate really means. Have a chat with your advisor about this, it will be eye opening.

tshaddox 6y ago

It’s just hyperbolic. It’s abundantly clear that the intention is to share a list of papers that a lot of people who are interested in computer science might find interesting.

bawolff 6y ago

To me, it sounds like a history list basically. Understanding the past so we know how we got to today. Does anyone "need" to read anything? No. Would you be enriched by it? Maybe. I persinally think its an interesting reading list. More generally, this seems like an undergrad course. Isn't the point of an undergrad degree to give broad foundational instruction that can be further built on? What better way then to see how we got to the present. > Does a roboticist need to understand lambda calculus? Reading a single paper and understanding something is very different. Understanding it, is a bit much. Knowing the very vaugest of an introduction to the subject by reading a single very foundational paper, they might benefit from that. At the very least, they should know how to read and understand a paper in an adjacent field to their own (this is an undergrad class after all)

Jtsummers 6y ago

While the (original HN) title may have been a bit on the pretentious side, the linked syllabus explains the rationale for the course: > This course examines papers every computer scientist should have read, from the 1930s to the present. It is meant to be a synthesizing experience for advanced students in computer science: a way for them to see the field as a whole, not through a survey, but by reliving the experience of its creation. The idea is to create a unified view of the field of computer science, for students who already know something about it, by replaying its entire evolution at an accelerated frame rate. Which is not a bad idea. Many computer scientists, programmers, and software engineers have an ahistorical understanding of CS. See the discussion the other day when someone claimed "software engineering" is only 20-30 years old. They aren't a one-off, though probably not the majority. A significant number of people in this field don't know the history of it: how it was developed, what dead ends were hit, what dead ends turned out not to be dead ends (often once we got fast enough hardware), etc. Similar to the ethics course in many engineering/science curricula, it's something that seems a bit superfluous but turns out to add a great deal of value if students can be bothered to explore it.

tchalla 6y ago

The objectives mentioned are >>> Learning Objectives: >>> To identify the major subfields of computer science, their intellectual family tree, and the major figures and works of their birth and infancy. To be able to place current computer science research in the context of its intellectual lineage. To be able to present to an audience of educated but non-specialist computer scientists some of the major ideas of computer science in a way that is succinct and easy to understand. To be able to critique constructively similar presentations by others.

mrbreeze 6y ago

Of course modern architects need to know and learn about the pyramids. The structure both from a mechanics and static stability perspective are a marvel for building architecture. They are not drywall hanging workers to only care about learning the available drywall types they will use tomorrow for their construction project. If you are a CS PhD student the expectation is that you become a scholar in the discipline. This vocational attitude about 'where will I need this' is perhaps an indication that you don't quite understand what a doctorate really means. Have a chat with your advisor about this, it will be eye opening.