3 ms·

I immediately rethought my assertion when I submitted but left it for argument. Like Picasso saying "computers are useless" to encourage deeper discussion. Math

by moo 14y ago

I immediately rethought my assertion when I submitted but left it for argument. Like Picasso saying "computers are useless" to encourage deeper discussion. Mathematics lends rigorous proof, like with an induction proof. It takes a level of abstract thinking to decipher recursive code, the kind of training helped by a mathematics education. Software programming gives you exposure to existing abstractions but direct mathematics training gives rigor to developing new concepts. University disciplines, within the university, do have ownership over domains of knowledge. So computer science is really math and engineering. Like philosophy, mathematics is about ideas. Understanding the underlying philosophical and mathematical ideas are enlightening and often practical. Benefiting from understanding these ideas or methodology does not necessarily mean I have to be good at the level of philosophical writing, or solving proofs.

barrkel 14y ago
Unfortunately, very little of software engineering involves new concepts; and when they are introduced, it's often ill-advised. It's usually better to build something out of two or three well-understood ideas that have stood the test of time in the industry than a single novel one, even if it's a lot shorter and less work for the initial implementer. There will be later maintainers who may not have had as much invested in their experience and training, and it's normally better for whoever is paying the bills that specific and exotic skills are not required on a continual basis. New ideas really pay off when the constraints are such that conventional composition of existing ideas won't work well. But those situations are rare. It might sound like I'm arguing against talented software engineers, or against education, training etc., but really it's just business pragmatics and economics.

by moo 14y ago

barrkel 14y ago

Unfortunately, very little of software engineering involves new concepts; and when they are introduced, it's often ill-advised. It's usually better to build something out of two or three well-understood ideas that have stood the test of time in the industry than a single novel one, even if it's a lot shorter and less work for the initial implementer. There will be later maintainers who may not have had as much invested in their experience and training, and it's normally better for whoever is paying the bills that specific and exotic skills are not required on a continual basis. New ideas really pay off when the constraints are such that conventional composition of existing ideas won't work well. But those situations are rare. It might sound like I'm arguing against talented software engineers, or against education, training etc., but really it's just business pragmatics and economics.