3 ms·

Whereas the original "pen science is to writing as CS is to web 2.0" analogy might be awfully skewed, you do have to ask yourself how frequently it is necessary

by ochiba 19y ago

Whereas the original "pen science is to writing as CS is to web 2.0" analogy might be awfully skewed, you do have to ask yourself how frequently it is necessary to apply the kind of algorithms and techniques [that CS is in part comprised of] in a typical Web 2.0 application.

amichail 19y ago
Well maybe some advanced algorithms are important (e.g., encryption), but they are part of libraries. You do not need to worry about how they work just as you do not need to worry about the physics behind pens or the way a word processor is constructed when writing a novel.
- extantproject 19y ago
  Knowing how algorithms work can easily be the difference between a program finishing in ten minutes as opposed to never.
cperciva 19y ago
I also ask myself how frequently it is necessary to apply the plot and characterization -- or for that matter, grammar and spelling, apparently -- to blog posts. Gulliver's Travels is better writing than most blog posts, just like the FreeBSD kernel is better code than Reddit. If most Web 2.0 applications don't apply many concepts from Computer Science, it says more to me about the quality of Web 2.0 applications than it does about the importance of Computer Science.
- amichail 19y ago
  Web 2.0 apps should of course make use of many concepts from Computer Science -- just as professional writers should make use of the latest word processing software. But you can still have the case that the web 2.0 apps are much more interesting than the CS concepts on which they are based.
  - cperciva 19y ago
    "you can still have the case that the web 2.0 apps are much more interesting than the CS concepts on which they are based" Which is more interesting, opera or football? Personally, I'm interested in opera -- and Computer Science -- but I'm willing to accept that most people find football (and web 2.0 applications) to be far more interesting. But you thinking that Computer Science is boring doesn't imply that Computer Science is analogous to studying pens any more than me thinking that football is boring implies that football is analogous to the mating behaviour of male elk. In both cases there is similarity at first glance -- Computer Science courses tend to focus on very simple and well-understood algorithms (quicksort, binary search, minimal spanning tree, etc.), while to someone without understanding of tactics, football appears to be nothing more than a bunch of large males running at and into each other -- but if you take the time to understand either of these you'll see that the analogies fail quite quickly.

by ochiba 19y ago

amichail 19y ago

Well maybe some advanced algorithms are important (e.g., encryption), but they are part of libraries. You do not need to worry about how they work just as you do not need to worry about the physics behind pens or the way a word processor is constructed when writing a novel.

extantproject 19y ago
Knowing how algorithms work can easily be the difference between a program finishing in ten minutes as opposed to never.

cperciva 19y ago

I also ask myself how frequently it is necessary to apply the plot and characterization -- or for that matter, grammar and spelling, apparently -- to blog posts. Gulliver's Travels is better writing than most blog posts, just like the FreeBSD kernel is better code than Reddit. If most Web 2.0 applications don't apply many concepts from Computer Science, it says more to me about the quality of Web 2.0 applications than it does about the importance of Computer Science.

amichail 19y ago
Web 2.0 apps should of course make use of many concepts from Computer Science -- just as professional writers should make use of the latest word processing software. But you can still have the case that the web 2.0 apps are much more interesting than the CS concepts on which they are based.
- cperciva 19y ago
  "you can still have the case that the web 2.0 apps are much more interesting than the CS concepts on which they are based" Which is more interesting, opera or football? Personally, I'm interested in opera -- and Computer Science -- but I'm willing to accept that most people find football (and web 2.0 applications) to be far more interesting. But you thinking that Computer Science is boring doesn't imply that Computer Science is analogous to studying pens any more than me thinking that football is boring implies that football is analogous to the mating behaviour of male elk. In both cases there is similarity at first glance -- Computer Science courses tend to focus on very simple and well-understood algorithms (quicksort, binary search, minimal spanning tree, etc.), while to someone without understanding of tactics, football appears to be nothing more than a bunch of large males running at and into each other -- but if you take the time to understand either of these you'll see that the analogies fail quite quickly.