3 ms·

I'm not sure you understand what computer science really is. Perhaps you are thinking of software engineering. It varies by university, but my program was app

by qhoxie 18y ago

I'm not sure you understand what computer science really is. Perhaps you are thinking of software engineering. It varies by university, but my program was approximately 75% theory courses and 25% practical (programming, give or take) courses. This seems to be a common misconception among the uninformed. While there is some coding in select theory classes, it is limited to POC implementations. Most mid to upper level practical courses (attempt to) teach about exterior factors in programming such as team management, testing, and workflows. To say that programming is easier than ever is a naively sweeping statement. There may be truth in some aspects such as increased communities around languages, advancements in frameworks, and pushes for better tools and documentation, but the basis of programming has not changed. If anything, it has broadened and become more complex.

amichail 18y ago
I've spent quite a long time in academia (I'm a former academic) and I am well aware about the difference between software engineering and computer science. The point though is this: the typical web 2.0 app is really easy to build.
- qhoxie 18y ago
  The point though is this: the typical web 2.0 app is really easy to build. Saying that and saying programming is easier and it is making CS departments less relevant are very different things. In accodance with that, building a web 2.0 app may be easy, but building a good web application takes as much skill and talent as ever. Standards change.
  - amichail 18y ago
    Frameworks get better all the time. For example, building a scalable web app is now much easier with the google app engine.
    - qhoxie 18y ago
      I agree and made note of framework and tool advancements above, but you are still missing the point. Good utilities make it quicker to create an application, but they don't create good programmers or good code by themselves. Squeak (http://www.squeak.org/ http://www.squeak.org/) was an interesting advent. It made programming pretty simple. A layperson playing with squeak could "program," but it hardly stands in for even an introductory CS class. I also take issue with the fact that you treat programming or web app development as if good is a static threshold. A good web app a few years ago hardly compares today, and that can be seen in the evolution of almost any major website.

by qhoxie 18y ago

amichail 18y ago

I've spent quite a long time in academia (I'm a former academic) and I am well aware about the difference between software engineering and computer science. The point though is this: the typical web 2.0 app is really easy to build.

qhoxie 18y ago
The point though is this: the typical web 2.0 app is really easy to build. Saying that and saying programming is easier and it is making CS departments less relevant are very different things. In accodance with that, building a web 2.0 app may be easy, but building a good web application takes as much skill and talent as ever. Standards change.
- amichail 18y ago
  Frameworks get better all the time. For example, building a scalable web app is now much easier with the google app engine.
  - qhoxie 18y ago
    I agree and made note of framework and tool advancements above, but you are still missing the point. Good utilities make it quicker to create an application, but they don't create good programmers or good code by themselves. Squeak (http://www.squeak.org/ http://www.squeak.org/) was an interesting advent. It made programming pretty simple. A layperson playing with squeak could "program," but it hardly stands in for even an introductory CS class. I also take issue with the fact that you treat programming or web app development as if good is a static threshold. A good web app a few years ago hardly compares today, and that can be seen in the evolution of almost any major website.