4 ms·

Please get your facts straight. If the papers had never existed we would still have the Internet, Networks, Filesystems, OS and Compilers. Those things are not

by ucee054 14y ago

Please get your facts straight. If the papers had never existed we would still have the Internet, Networks, Filesystems, OS and Compilers. Those things are not exactly difficult to do at a basic level (the 0to1 level) although at an advanced level (1toN) they might be. So you will find that how those things got onto the market was by some engineer figuring out how to do it and hacking it together, not the work of some professor. The two examples I am familiar with are filesystems and OS. Our filesystems today are the result of descent from FAT12, which came from discussion between Marc McDonald and Bill Gates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table Our operating systems are the result of descent from CPM, which came from Gray Kildall deciding to write a RAM tester. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M And that applies to 90% of the market. "Look ma no research!" I can find you similar examples for compilers and networks as well, though in those fields the examples will not be so outright embarrassing to academia. What research is about is mostly chasing trends in conferences and funding bodies. Don't buy academic hype.

pm90 14y ago
>Please get your facts straight. If the papers had never existed we would still have the Internet, Networks, Filesystems, OS and Compilers. That is a question without an answer. Probably, they would have been invented, probably not. The ideas themselves were played around and worked on by academics though. You can't deny that they helped to usher in the technologies much quicker than otherwise. >So you will find that how those things got onto the market was by some engineer figuring out how to do it and hacking it together, not the work of some professor Professors don't (usually) sit down and write code, they hire others to do it for them. As I said before, the point of research isn't to produce a product, ready for use. It is to try out ideas that wouldn't be tried by the industry. Its good that Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina were hired to code what later turned out to be the Mosaic web browser. >Our operating systems are the result of descent from CPM, which came from Gray Kildall deciding to write a RAM tester. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M MSDOS, true. Unix, false. Unix descended from MULTICS[0] which started much before CP/M[1] >I can find you similar examples for compilers and networks as well, though in those fields the examples will not be so outright embarrassing to academia. I wince at your choice of words. "Embarrassing"? Why? If the industry produces an idea or technique that solves a research problem, academics have no trouble accepting it. See for instance: how quickly AWS, CUDA etc are being adopted by academics for their research. So, in total, you have given one "fact" which turns out to be untrue. And you say you can give more examples in networks and compilers. Please do. I am genuinely interested to see what it is that has so tarnished your views on the work of academia. >And that applies to 90% of the market. "Look ma no research!" Clearly. Here, take another famous example: relational databases originated in a paper by an academic, E.F. Codd[2]. I see that you are hell-bent on showing that academic research has made no contribution at all to the development of modern computer science. I haven't got the time or inclination to argue, so this will be my last comment on this matter [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database
- ucee054 14y ago
  I gave you 2 facts, referring to CPM and FAT, which apply to the Windows 90% of the PC market. Unix is irrelevant; nobody used Unix until Android came along. Unix is in fact the other 10%. Furthermore, relational databases are the work by Professor Stonebraker, that I already conceded in my original post. I haven't got the time or inclination to argue No, what you lack is the time and inclination to apply reading comprehension to my posts.

by ucee054 14y ago

pm90 14y ago

>Please get your facts straight. If the papers had never existed we would still have the Internet, Networks, Filesystems, OS and Compilers. That is a question without an answer. Probably, they would have been invented, probably not. The ideas themselves were played around and worked on by academics though. You can't deny that they helped to usher in the technologies much quicker than otherwise. >So you will find that how those things got onto the market was by some engineer figuring out how to do it and hacking it together, not the work of some professor Professors don't (usually) sit down and write code, they hire others to do it for them. As I said before, the point of research isn't to produce a product, ready for use. It is to try out ideas that wouldn't be tried by the industry. Its good that Marc Andreessen and Eric Bina were hired to code what later turned out to be the Mosaic web browser. >Our operating systems are the result of descent from CPM, which came from Gray Kildall deciding to write a RAM tester. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M MSDOS, true. Unix, false. Unix descended from MULTICS[0] which started much before CP/M[1] >I can find you similar examples for compilers and networks as well, though in those fields the examples will not be so outright embarrassing to academia. I wince at your choice of words. "Embarrassing"? Why? If the industry produces an idea or technique that solves a research problem, academics have no trouble accepting it. See for instance: how quickly AWS, CUDA etc are being adopted by academics for their research. So, in total, you have given one "fact" which turns out to be untrue. And you say you can give more examples in networks and compilers. Please do. I am genuinely interested to see what it is that has so tarnished your views on the work of academia. >And that applies to 90% of the market. "Look ma no research!" Clearly. Here, take another famous example: relational databases originated in a paper by an academic, E.F. Codd[2]. I see that you are hell-bent on showing that academic research has made no contribution at all to the development of modern computer science. I haven't got the time or inclination to argue, so this will be my last comment on this matter [0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multics [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP/M [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_database

ucee054 14y ago
I gave you 2 facts, referring to CPM and FAT, which apply to the Windows 90% of the PC market. Unix is irrelevant; nobody used Unix until Android came along. Unix is in fact the other 10%. Furthermore, relational databases are the work by Professor Stonebraker, that I already conceded in my original post. I haven't got the time or inclination to argue No, what you lack is the time and inclination to apply reading comprehension to my posts.