4 ms·

How is computer science not programming? The vast majority of CS research papers are about programming.

by alxmng 4y ago

tylerchr 4y ago
Have you read a lot of biology papers? Are they all about operating microscopes?
- alxmng 4y ago
  We're not talking about biology. There is no such thing as computers without programming.
  - nbernard 4y ago
    > There is no such thing as computers without programming. But there is computer science not applied to computers: Operations research for instance is basically a branch of CS: it is not about programming and it has applications in business, logistics, etc.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Try to prove your type system is sound without the academic math.
    - alxmng 4y ago
      A type system is an aspect of programming. I would hope a CS course covers type systems.
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Proving something about a type system requires zero expertise in programming, debugging, git, Linux, C++, etc. And expertise in programming, debugging, etc., is of zero use in attempting to prove something about the type system. As has been pointed out to me several times by CS academics, I could stand taking a course in type theory. I have a good intuitive sense about it (likely from my math background), but have no idea how to prove something about it.
      - joshuamorton 4y ago
        A type system is an aspect of a logical system. You can have typed boolean algebras, I don't think anyone programs in those though. A CS courseload certainly doesn't (and certainly not in the required selection of courses) cover soundness of a language. Even my theory-focused classload only covered automata up to proofs of regularity etc. This is, sort of, step 0 in soundness-proving methodologies, but it's only step zero.
        alxmng 4y ago
        The purpose of a type system is to ensure the correctness of programs. That's what they are, that's why they were invented, that's why they were studied. That CS involves math doesn't change the fact that it's about programming. The whole reason we want to prove a type system sound is so we can prove certain things about the programs that use that type system.
        dcow 4y ago
        You need to learn some history. Or at least cite your claims. We use type systems to help abstract patterns of data into logical constructs that can be reasoned about. They are logic systems with grammar that describes relationships between axioms and constructs. Seriously, go read a textbook and then we can pick this discussion up. Wikipedia has a good overview. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
        alxmng 4y ago
        Ah, yes. Type theory originates before programming. Type theory only has relevance to computers insofar as it’s used to prove things about programs. Type theory in the context of computing is about programming. We don’t call set theory and category theory “computer science” unless it’s about programming computers.
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        No, I mean that's an application yes, but I'd still call Alonzo Church a computer scientist and his work theoretical computer science. Much as how people who study computability are computer scientist, even though none of the asymptomatic improvements to matrix multiplication since 1990 are even remotely relevant to any kind of real-life program.
    - tayo42 4y ago
      What is an unsound type system. Why and how is it relevant for programing?
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        I can't give you a mathematical definition of it, but my intuitive one is that an unsound type system is a collection of kludges. It's relevant for programming because the language winds up with all kinds of ugly edge cases where things just don't line up right. With a sound type system, you can do things like compose a new type out of other types, and it will work consistently (not produce weird edge behaviors). For example, C's `void` type introduces anomalous behavior. A function returning `void` is not composable, e.g.: void foo(); void v = foo(); would work in a sound type system, but does not work in C. You'll see it in the compiler implementation because it's a special case that appears over and over.
        Koshkin 4y ago
        Isn’t that why some other languages explicitly draw a distinction between a function and a procedure? I think ‘void’ was introduced in C to do the same thing, implicitly (because omitting the return type does not achieve that).
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Yes, but Wirth (Pascal's inventor) was an academic, which is why Pascal has a separate notion of functions and procedures. `void` is a hackish special case in the type system, and not just for function returns. It's unsound.
  - fsckboy 4y ago
    > There is no such thing as computers without programming. not sure what you mean by this, because there's no such thing as programming without computers. (actually, the first computers were invented before programmable computers were invented)
    - alxmng 4y ago
      Computing is running a program. That's what computing is. An algorithm is a program. A computer is a machine that performs the algorithm, so we don't have to. The Turing machine computes the answer by running the instructions (the program, the algorithm).
      - dcow 4y ago
        On what computer does the algorithm: 1. take two slices of bread, 2. apply peanut butter to one side of one slice, 3. apply jelly to one side of the other slice, 4. place the slices together with the coated sides touching, and 5. enjoy. run?
        illiarian 4y ago
        Obligatory PB & Jelly Exact Instructions Challenge video: https://youtu.be/cDA3_5982h8 https://youtu.be/cDA3_5982h8 The answer is: it runs on dad, poorly :)
        alxmng 4y ago
        Sure. What would the study of human behavior or algorithms that aren’t computable with computers be called? Surely not “computer science”…
        dcow 4y ago
        Humans are biological machines that can compute, no? Or, you really don't think I can design a logical grammar to formally express the creation of a PB&J?
  - hnick 4y ago
    Do you consider an ASIC a computer? How about a sufficiently large number of NAND gates, arranged a certain way? They can perform computation but are not programmable after the fact. My computer science degree covered a lot of topics that didn't require a computer, for example relational algebra, discrete mathematics, and introductory formal logic. Of course, the practical usages of these are often best done through a computer and programming, but it's not a requirement. In reality all computer science degrees I'm familiar with make an attempt to expose students to relevant programming languages, it's simply practical and students demand it, but the details of coding style, how to use git, or similar topics may not be relevant in a computer science degree. That stuff isn't so hard to learn if you have clear guidelines and they have some baseline amount of intelligence which is one thing a degree tries to validate.
    - alxmng 4y ago
      An ASIC is a computer which runs a fixed program. Determining what the ASIC is supposed to do, and implementing it, is programming. People who design ASICs are programmers. A computer is a machine which runs programs (it computes). That's literally the practical and theoretical basis for computing. Instead of running the program in our heads, we have designed machines to do it for us. We can calculate SHA256 with a paper and pencil. But we created machines (computers) to compute for us, according to the instructions we give them (the program, the algorithm).
      - dcow 4y ago
        Is calculating SHA256 using pencil and paper programming? Or computing?
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - dcow 4y ago
    Honestly your comments/behavior in this thread read as borderline sealioning. I’m not accusing you of it, just saying that it is so absurd it almost comes off that way. Computer Science is the study of how we design algorithms to process data. We do computer science using grammars that allow us to describe abstract operations on data. We categorize the different types of algorithmic solutions to problems. We study the limits of efficiency and prove things about the various classes of algorithmic problems and their solutions. We generally work with discrete structures and type systems (like our beloved lambda calculus, origin of the Y combinator). You can design algorithms without ever compiling a single piece of code just like you can add numbers without ever using a calculator. In computer science we talk about abstract syntax trees, higher order functions, context free and regular grammars, finite state automata, logic, and numbers. You can even get meta and modify your own algorithm’s data as part of the algorithm itself. All this happens independent of a particular instance of a physical machine. Programming means “issue instructions to a given instance of a machine so that it behaves a certain way”. We take all our theory and apply it to an electrical device that has a physical processor and fixed memory. We program a microchip by writing chains of instructions to its memory. We measure performance in cycles per second. When programming we talk about machine instructions, loadable images, calling conventions, binary interfaces, program counter, alignment, and words. TL;DR: just go read the Wikipedia page on Computer Science, it’s quite clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    > There is no such thing... Geezer reaction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer
alex_sf 4y ago
CS research papers are about programming in the same sense that physics papers are about rockets.
- alxmng 4y ago
  If the only thing you could do with physics was build rockets, then physics would be akin to rocket building. There is no such thing as computers without programming. That CS isn't about programming is such an absurd perspective. Even if you consider that some CS research is mostly focused on hardware, the vast majority of CS research is about software. The vast majority of CS research is about writing programs.
  - AYBABTME 4y ago
    Algorithms without computers (in the "plastic box with CPU+memory" sense) are definitely a thing. Computers in the end, as we experience them everyday, are just one particularly manufacturable manifestation of Turing machines. A bunch of stuff in life and nature is amenable to algorithmic treatment. "Algorithms to live by" is one popular example of that aspect of computer science applied to life. Programming is just a way to write down a mechanism. A mechanical computer would be "programmed" quite differently than by writing code in a text editor.
    - alxmng 4y ago
      Algorithms are programs. Computing is running an algorithm, the program. Computing is programming! The Turing machine was a theoretical concept created to prove things about whether we could program a machine to solve a certain class of problems. It was stated above that 'a function is effectively calculable if its values can be found by some purely mechanical process'. We may take this statement literally, understanding by a purely mechanical process one which could be carried out by a machine. It is possible to give a mathematical description, in a certain normal form, of the structures of these machines. The development of these ideas leads to the author's definition of a computable function, and to an identification of computability with effective calculability. It is not difficult, though somewhat laborious, to prove that these three definitions [the 3rd is the λ-calculus] are equivalent. — Turing (1939) in The Undecidable, p. 160 Computer science is most definitely the science of programming machines (computers). It seems ridiculous to me to say CS is not the study of programming. Does CS involve other disciplines like math and physics? Yes. Of course. But it uses math and physics towards the end of programming a machine to carry out the programs.
Galanwe 4y ago
> The vast majority of CS research papers are about programming. Hum, allow me to disagree strongly. Maybe the vast majority of those you read, but not overall. My experience is that most research papers look like math, or linguistic, etc, while the annexes show example use cases that relate to actual pragmatic applications. From my friends that did PhDs and regularly write research papers, here is what it looks like: - One of them works on detecting or bypassing virus signatures. The papers look like high level linguistic theorems to prove that some grammars respect some constraints. It's mainly algebra and language theory. - An other works on watermarks that can resist compression. These ones are 100% algebra and analysis. The applications on watermarking are only mentioned as possible use cases, and a proof of concept was done in his thesis. - One work on transactional memories. I don't think she even know herself how to program, her papers are hardcore math in some intricate vector space. She has no idea what transactional memories are used for, she's just interested in the underlying math problems to be solved.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

How is computer science not programming? The vast majority of CS research papers are about programming.

by alxmng 4y ago

How is computer science not programming? The vast majority of CS research papers are about programming.

tylerchr 4y ago

Have you read a lot of biology papers? Are they all about operating microscopes?

alxmng 4y ago
We're not talking about biology. There is no such thing as computers without programming.
- nbernard 4y ago
  > There is no such thing as computers without programming. But there is computer science not applied to computers: Operations research for instance is basically a branch of CS: it is not about programming and it has applications in business, logistics, etc.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Try to prove your type system is sound without the academic math.
  - alxmng 4y ago
    A type system is an aspect of programming. I would hope a CS course covers type systems.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Proving something about a type system requires zero expertise in programming, debugging, git, Linux, C++, etc. And expertise in programming, debugging, etc., is of zero use in attempting to prove something about the type system. As has been pointed out to me several times by CS academics, I could stand taking a course in type theory. I have a good intuitive sense about it (likely from my math background), but have no idea how to prove something about it.
    - joshuamorton 4y ago
      A type system is an aspect of a logical system. You can have typed boolean algebras, I don't think anyone programs in those though. A CS courseload certainly doesn't (and certainly not in the required selection of courses) cover soundness of a language. Even my theory-focused classload only covered automata up to proofs of regularity etc. This is, sort of, step 0 in soundness-proving methodologies, but it's only step zero.
      - alxmng 4y ago
        The purpose of a type system is to ensure the correctness of programs. That's what they are, that's why they were invented, that's why they were studied. That CS involves math doesn't change the fact that it's about programming. The whole reason we want to prove a type system sound is so we can prove certain things about the programs that use that type system.
        dcow 4y ago
        You need to learn some history. Or at least cite your claims. We use type systems to help abstract patterns of data into logical constructs that can be reasoned about. They are logic systems with grammar that describes relationships between axioms and constructs. Seriously, go read a textbook and then we can pick this discussion up. Wikipedia has a good overview. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_theory
        alxmng 4y ago
        Ah, yes. Type theory originates before programming. Type theory only has relevance to computers insofar as it’s used to prove things about programs. Type theory in the context of computing is about programming. We don’t call set theory and category theory “computer science” unless it’s about programming computers.
        joshuamorton 4y ago
        No, I mean that's an application yes, but I'd still call Alonzo Church a computer scientist and his work theoretical computer science. Much as how people who study computability are computer scientist, even though none of the asymptomatic improvements to matrix multiplication since 1990 are even remotely relevant to any kind of real-life program.
  - tayo42 4y ago
    What is an unsound type system. Why and how is it relevant for programing?
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      I can't give you a mathematical definition of it, but my intuitive one is that an unsound type system is a collection of kludges. It's relevant for programming because the language winds up with all kinds of ugly edge cases where things just don't line up right. With a sound type system, you can do things like compose a new type out of other types, and it will work consistently (not produce weird edge behaviors). For example, C's `void` type introduces anomalous behavior. A function returning `void` is not composable, e.g.: void foo(); void v = foo(); would work in a sound type system, but does not work in C. You'll see it in the compiler implementation because it's a special case that appears over and over.
      - Koshkin 4y ago
        Isn’t that why some other languages explicitly draw a distinction between a function and a procedure? I think ‘void’ was introduced in C to do the same thing, implicitly (because omitting the return type does not achieve that).
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Yes, but Wirth (Pascal's inventor) was an academic, which is why Pascal has a separate notion of functions and procedures. `void` is a hackish special case in the type system, and not just for function returns. It's unsound.
- fsckboy 4y ago
  > There is no such thing as computers without programming. not sure what you mean by this, because there's no such thing as programming without computers. (actually, the first computers were invented before programmable computers were invented)
  - alxmng 4y ago
    Computing is running a program. That's what computing is. An algorithm is a program. A computer is a machine that performs the algorithm, so we don't have to. The Turing machine computes the answer by running the instructions (the program, the algorithm).
    - dcow 4y ago
      On what computer does the algorithm: 1. take two slices of bread, 2. apply peanut butter to one side of one slice, 3. apply jelly to one side of the other slice, 4. place the slices together with the coated sides touching, and 5. enjoy. run?
      - illiarian 4y ago
        Obligatory PB & Jelly Exact Instructions Challenge video: https://youtu.be/cDA3_5982h8 https://youtu.be/cDA3_5982h8 The answer is: it runs on dad, poorly :)
      - alxmng 4y ago
        Sure. What would the study of human behavior or algorithms that aren’t computable with computers be called? Surely not “computer science”…
        dcow 4y ago
        Humans are biological machines that can compute, no? Or, you really don't think I can design a logical grammar to formally express the creation of a PB&J?
- hnick 4y ago
  Do you consider an ASIC a computer? How about a sufficiently large number of NAND gates, arranged a certain way? They can perform computation but are not programmable after the fact. My computer science degree covered a lot of topics that didn't require a computer, for example relational algebra, discrete mathematics, and introductory formal logic. Of course, the practical usages of these are often best done through a computer and programming, but it's not a requirement. In reality all computer science degrees I'm familiar with make an attempt to expose students to relevant programming languages, it's simply practical and students demand it, but the details of coding style, how to use git, or similar topics may not be relevant in a computer science degree. That stuff isn't so hard to learn if you have clear guidelines and they have some baseline amount of intelligence which is one thing a degree tries to validate.
  - alxmng 4y ago
    An ASIC is a computer which runs a fixed program. Determining what the ASIC is supposed to do, and implementing it, is programming. People who design ASICs are programmers. A computer is a machine which runs programs (it computes). That's literally the practical and theoretical basis for computing. Instead of running the program in our heads, we have designed machines to do it for us. We can calculate SHA256 with a paper and pencil. But we created machines (computers) to compute for us, according to the instructions we give them (the program, the algorithm).
    - dcow 4y ago
      Is calculating SHA256 using pencil and paper programming? Or computing?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- dcow 4y ago
  Honestly your comments/behavior in this thread read as borderline sealioning. I’m not accusing you of it, just saying that it is so absurd it almost comes off that way. Computer Science is the study of how we design algorithms to process data. We do computer science using grammars that allow us to describe abstract operations on data. We categorize the different types of algorithmic solutions to problems. We study the limits of efficiency and prove things about the various classes of algorithmic problems and their solutions. We generally work with discrete structures and type systems (like our beloved lambda calculus, origin of the Y combinator). You can design algorithms without ever compiling a single piece of code just like you can add numbers without ever using a calculator. In computer science we talk about abstract syntax trees, higher order functions, context free and regular grammars, finite state automata, logic, and numbers. You can even get meta and modify your own algorithm’s data as part of the algorithm itself. All this happens independent of a particular instance of a physical machine. Programming means “issue instructions to a given instance of a machine so that it behaves a certain way”. We take all our theory and apply it to an electrical device that has a physical processor and fixed memory. We program a microchip by writing chains of instructions to its memory. We measure performance in cycles per second. When programming we talk about machine instructions, loadable images, calling conventions, binary interfaces, program counter, alignment, and words. TL;DR: just go read the Wikipedia page on Computer Science, it’s quite clear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science
- bell-cot 4y ago
  > There is no such thing... Geezer reaction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_Fire_Control_Computer

alex_sf 4y ago

CS research papers are about programming in the same sense that physics papers are about rockets.

alxmng 4y ago
If the only thing you could do with physics was build rockets, then physics would be akin to rocket building. There is no such thing as computers without programming. That CS isn't about programming is such an absurd perspective. Even if you consider that some CS research is mostly focused on hardware, the vast majority of CS research is about software. The vast majority of CS research is about writing programs.
- AYBABTME 4y ago
  Algorithms without computers (in the "plastic box with CPU+memory" sense) are definitely a thing. Computers in the end, as we experience them everyday, are just one particularly manufacturable manifestation of Turing machines. A bunch of stuff in life and nature is amenable to algorithmic treatment. "Algorithms to live by" is one popular example of that aspect of computer science applied to life. Programming is just a way to write down a mechanism. A mechanical computer would be "programmed" quite differently than by writing code in a text editor.
  - alxmng 4y ago
    Algorithms are programs. Computing is running an algorithm, the program. Computing is programming! The Turing machine was a theoretical concept created to prove things about whether we could program a machine to solve a certain class of problems. It was stated above that 'a function is effectively calculable if its values can be found by some purely mechanical process'. We may take this statement literally, understanding by a purely mechanical process one which could be carried out by a machine. It is possible to give a mathematical description, in a certain normal form, of the structures of these machines. The development of these ideas leads to the author's definition of a computable function, and to an identification of computability with effective calculability. It is not difficult, though somewhat laborious, to prove that these three definitions [the 3rd is the λ-calculus] are equivalent. — Turing (1939) in The Undecidable, p. 160 Computer science is most definitely the science of programming machines (computers). It seems ridiculous to me to say CS is not the study of programming. Does CS involve other disciplines like math and physics? Yes. Of course. But it uses math and physics towards the end of programming a machine to carry out the programs.

Galanwe 4y ago

> The vast majority of CS research papers are about programming. Hum, allow me to disagree strongly. Maybe the vast majority of those you read, but not overall. My experience is that most research papers look like math, or linguistic, etc, while the annexes show example use cases that relate to actual pragmatic applications. From my friends that did PhDs and regularly write research papers, here is what it looks like: - One of them works on detecting or bypassing virus signatures. The papers look like high level linguistic theorems to prove that some grammars respect some constraints. It's mainly algebra and language theory. - An other works on watermarks that can resist compression. These ones are 100% algebra and analysis. The applications on watermarking are only mentioned as possible use cases, and a proof of concept was done in his thesis. - One work on transactional memories. I don't think she even know herself how to program, her papers are hardcore math in some intricate vector space. She has no idea what transactional memories are used for, she's just interested in the underlying math problems to be solved.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]