3 ms·

I think that's the difference between computer science and programming. Yes, you'll be a better programmer if you focus on the low-level details, but you'll be

I think that's the difference between computer science and programming. Yes, you'll be a better programmer if you focus on the low-level details, but you'll be a worse computer scientist. I guess, if your goal is to write optimizations, focus on details. If your goal is to find solutions or think creatively, focus on abstractions. Obviously, there’s a lot of overlap, but I’m not sure how else to describe it.

skohan 5y ago
I disagree that you'll be a worse computer scientist. Computer science doesn't happen in Plato's heaven, it happens in real processors and memory. I tend to think focusing on abstractions is almost always the wrong approach. Abstractions should arise naturally as a solution to certain problems, like excess repetition, but you should almost always start as concrete as possible.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I would disagree with where you are drawing that line. I would say that computer science does happen in Plato's heaven; software engineering happens in real processors and memory. But most of us are actually software engineers (writing programs to do something) rather than computer scientists (writing programs to learn or teach something).
  - skohan 5y ago
    I agree that there is some value to purely theoretical work, but I think this is over-valued in CS. For instance, in the first year of physics instruction at university, problems are often stated in the form of: "In a frictionless environment..." I think a lot of problems are created in the application of computer science because we treat reality as if there are no physical constraints - because often it is the case that our computers are powerful enough that we can safely ignore constraints - but in aggregate this approach leads to a lot of waste that we feel in every day life. I think incremental cost should play a larger role in CS education, and if every practitioner thought about it more we would live in a better world.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > I think a lot of problems are created in the application of computer science because we treat reality as if there are no physical constraints - because often it is the case that our computers are powerful enough that we can safely ignore constraints - but in aggregate this approach leads to a lot of waste that we feel in every day life. ObTangent: Bitcoin.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - loeg 5y ago
    Undergrad "CS" education, probably for better (considering the career paths and demand), is more about teaching what you call software engineering than what you call computer science.
mbrodersen 5y ago
My company fired two Computer Science PhDs because they knew the theory brilliantly but couldn’t turn it into code. That’s the problem with only learning the theory.

skohan 5y ago

I disagree that you'll be a worse computer scientist. Computer science doesn't happen in Plato's heaven, it happens in real processors and memory. I tend to think focusing on abstractions is almost always the wrong approach. Abstractions should arise naturally as a solution to certain problems, like excess repetition, but you should almost always start as concrete as possible.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago
I would disagree with where you are drawing that line. I would say that computer science does happen in Plato's heaven; software engineering happens in real processors and memory. But most of us are actually software engineers (writing programs to do something) rather than computer scientists (writing programs to learn or teach something).
- skohan 5y ago
  I agree that there is some value to purely theoretical work, but I think this is over-valued in CS. For instance, in the first year of physics instruction at university, problems are often stated in the form of: "In a frictionless environment..." I think a lot of problems are created in the application of computer science because we treat reality as if there are no physical constraints - because often it is the case that our computers are powerful enough that we can safely ignore constraints - but in aggregate this approach leads to a lot of waste that we feel in every day life. I think incremental cost should play a larger role in CS education, and if every practitioner thought about it more we would live in a better world.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > I think a lot of problems are created in the application of computer science because we treat reality as if there are no physical constraints - because often it is the case that our computers are powerful enough that we can safely ignore constraints - but in aggregate this approach leads to a lot of waste that we feel in every day life. ObTangent: Bitcoin.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- loeg 5y ago
  Undergrad "CS" education, probably for better (considering the career paths and demand), is more about teaching what you call software engineering than what you call computer science.

mbrodersen 5y ago

My company fired two Computer Science PhDs because they knew the theory brilliantly but couldn’t turn it into code. That’s the problem with only learning the theory.