3 ms·

This comment is partially correct, and partially bullshit. I've been to university and studied computer science. What computer science gives you is a foundatio

This comment is partially correct, and partially bullshit. I've been to university and studied computer science. What computer science gives you is a foundation in understanding computing and what's going on at various levels, which simply toying around with languages does not. What a computer science degree generally does not do, is teach you how to be a particularly good programmer. There might be brief parts about patterns and whatnot, but I found there was bugger all about reusable, maintainable, elegant code. There is so much about "programming" that is very much removed from "computer science". This is where the bullshit part comes in - what stiff is saying about the Dunning Kruger effect is quite frankly obnoxious drivel. You can be an excellent programmer by learning to program via toying around, and a degree suits a very specific learning style. I've known many programmers who do not have a degree who are far better than those with a degree. I found a degree very difficult as I have ADHD and am terrible at sitting in a lecture sucking up information, then vomiting it into an exam - it is also not particularly representative of how the knowledge is actually applied. tl;dr CS degree gives you a good foundation and a bunch of in-depth insight into how computers work (and a are good tool to make you realise the breadth of the subject), but are not for everyone as people have different learning styles, and certainly do not make you a great programmer - and are not necessary in order to be one. We just need to remember that the people who invented Computer Science did not have a degree in Computer Science.

capkutay 13y ago
The people who invented computer science were certainly driven by theoretical and mathematical concepts. Lambda calculus, church numerals, etc all played a role in the formative days of cs
lomnakkus 13y ago
This might be a bit of a tangent, but "learning styles" have very little supporting evidence (if any): http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html Just to be clear: I have absolutely no doubt that having ADHD will impact your ability to sit through lectures -- I'm just commenting on the generalisation to "learning styles". And, yes: CS has very little to do with actual programming unless you actively work towards that in terms of your chosen niche of programming.
- ZoF 13y ago
  If by 'learning styles' you mean the formalized definitions of the term by educational theorists, sure those lack evidence... I think the parent comment was using the literal definition though; that is to say he meant that people learn in different ways. Are you saying that you think there's little supporting evidence that people have different styles in which they learn? I would assume not as that would be a pretty ludicrous world-view; especially considering the article you linked even concedes that kids learn differently. The only point of that article really was to point out the flaws in forming groups of children based on learning style; not because people don't learn differently, but because any 'learning style' categorizations thus far haven't been proven sufficiently meaningful. In summary, you have no reason to call him out on something he isn't even promoting.
ozim 13y ago
People who invented Computer Science did so for others not to reinvent it again. People who did not studied it are more prone to reinventing wheel. Good take on it has Bruce Schneier it is same as in crypto: "Regularly, someone from outside cryptography -- who has no idea how crypto works -- pops up and says "hey, I can solve their problems." Invariably, they make some trivial encryption scheme because they don't know better."
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

capkutay 13y ago

The people who invented computer science were certainly driven by theoretical and mathematical concepts. Lambda calculus, church numerals, etc all played a role in the formative days of cs

lomnakkus 13y ago

This might be a bit of a tangent, but "learning styles" have very little supporting evidence (if any): http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html http://www.danielwillingham.com/learning-styles-faq.html Just to be clear: I have absolutely no doubt that having ADHD will impact your ability to sit through lectures -- I'm just commenting on the generalisation to "learning styles". And, yes: CS has very little to do with actual programming unless you actively work towards that in terms of your chosen niche of programming.

ZoF 13y ago
If by 'learning styles' you mean the formalized definitions of the term by educational theorists, sure those lack evidence... I think the parent comment was using the literal definition though; that is to say he meant that people learn in different ways. Are you saying that you think there's little supporting evidence that people have different styles in which they learn? I would assume not as that would be a pretty ludicrous world-view; especially considering the article you linked even concedes that kids learn differently. The only point of that article really was to point out the flaws in forming groups of children based on learning style; not because people don't learn differently, but because any 'learning style' categorizations thus far haven't been proven sufficiently meaningful. In summary, you have no reason to call him out on something he isn't even promoting.

ozim 13y ago

People who invented Computer Science did so for others not to reinvent it again. People who did not studied it are more prone to reinventing wheel. Good take on it has Bruce Schneier it is same as in crypto: "Regularly, someone from outside cryptography -- who has no idea how crypto works -- pops up and says "hey, I can solve their problems." Invariably, they make some trivial encryption scheme because they don't know better."

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]