3 ms·

Computer science != programming language. Computer science is at a far lower level of abstraction than meta-languages and compilers.

scott_s 15y ago
Most people I know consider programming languages and compilers a part of computer science. This set of people is mostly computer science researchers, some of whom (including myself) who do work in the area.
- pointyhat 15y ago
  That's at a very high level. It's part of, but it's not the driving force behind what is possible. That is the constraints of the universe and consequentially mathematics, on which there is little focus these days. Programming languages and compilers are the easy part of the problem. Translation is almost completely solved. However, the abstractions over the top at both the conceptual and structural level (logic->machine) are definitely not solved.
  - scott_s 15y ago
    I disagree. I think the most pressing issue facing computer science right now is how to express and exploit parallelism in a way that most programmers can benefit in most applications that they write. The expression part of that problem is languages and compilers. The exploitation part of that problem is compilers and systems. Anyway, it sounds like when you say "computer science" you mean what most of us call "theoretical computer science." You're free to define words however you want, but you should expect confusion when you try to communicate with other people using those words. Theoretical computer science is still actively researched. You seem pretty confident that not much is going on, but do you keep up with their conferences and journals?
    - pointyhat 15y ago
      I do keep on top of things, but unfortunately the academic "industry" doesn't like to really push the boat out. Radicalism and original thought are frowned upon in the scientific community. Everything is the same ideas recycled and repackaged slightly differently.

scott_s 15y ago

Most people I know consider programming languages and compilers a part of computer science. This set of people is mostly computer science researchers, some of whom (including myself) who do work in the area.

pointyhat 15y ago
That's at a very high level. It's part of, but it's not the driving force behind what is possible. That is the constraints of the universe and consequentially mathematics, on which there is little focus these days. Programming languages and compilers are the easy part of the problem. Translation is almost completely solved. However, the abstractions over the top at both the conceptual and structural level (logic->machine) are definitely not solved.
- scott_s 15y ago
  I disagree. I think the most pressing issue facing computer science right now is how to express and exploit parallelism in a way that most programmers can benefit in most applications that they write. The expression part of that problem is languages and compilers. The exploitation part of that problem is compilers and systems. Anyway, it sounds like when you say "computer science" you mean what most of us call "theoretical computer science." You're free to define words however you want, but you should expect confusion when you try to communicate with other people using those words. Theoretical computer science is still actively researched. You seem pretty confident that not much is going on, but do you keep up with their conferences and journals?
  - pointyhat 15y ago
    I do keep on top of things, but unfortunately the academic "industry" doesn't like to really push the boat out. Radicalism and original thought are frowned upon in the scientific community. Everything is the same ideas recycled and repackaged slightly differently.