From: bdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Bruce Dubbs)
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: The sin of MicroSoft
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:31:04 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuron.tamu.edu

In article <1993Jan10.052832.17854@msi.com> bill@west.msi.com writes:
|Pete Skelly (petesk@microsoft.com) wrote:
|: Most people in the core of computer science tend to think things like
|: "address space" or "processing speed" are all computers are.  They study
|: algorithms and logic in order to build more powerful machines designed
|: to help in the study of algorithms and logic.  A lot of them are stuck on
|: ideas on how to make a computer do more than one thing at a time, but have
|: absolutely no idea what those things are.  It wasn't until recently that
|: the idea that "computers and people should work together" really came into
|: being.  This lead to the development of user interface technology by the
|: corporate sector, based on the works of Alan Kay and others at Xeros PARC
|: (These researches were tended to be on the fringe of academia, far from the
|: core research in user confusion occurring in UNIX development).

Actually Alan Kay was a relative late comer at PARC.  The founder,
Doug Englebart, had the initial vision and he in turn was inspired by
the description of MEMEX by Vannevar Bush.  Nelson had a lot of input
too although he was not at PARC.  This was in the 60's, but Bush's
article was published in 1945 and initially composed in 1932!  Note
that Bush's historic article "As We May Think" was in the vein of a
mechanical system, not a computer system, but was not practical intil
the advent of computers.

I agree that these researchers were visionaries and were (are still?)
considered on the fringe of mainstream ideas.

|I agree that computer science in the commercial world is getting wrapped
|up in things that are just the surface of computer science.  I think
|this is partly due to the education system.  I have a BS in computer
|science, and I remember that most classes taught me how to program, how
|to break apart a problem and solve it in a specific language.  Others
|even taught me a little bit about certain technologies like compilers and
|operating systems.  But it wasn't until my senior year in college that I
|realized that that was only the beginning.  When I studied the analysis
|of algorithms I learned really how to pick apart an algorithm regardless
|of the language.  Complexity theory because an interesting subject.  My
|operating systems class (the last of 3) showed me why I was studying
|proofs in mathmatics classes.  It really showed me how mathematics can
|really benefit computer science.
|
|I can't really say what a university can do to improve itself, but I
|think that computer science is much more than how to program in C or C++.
|Perhaps I wasn't a good enough student.

If you have a degree in Computer Science, didn't you have a
requirement for a Minor?  The use of a computer really has very little
meaning without an application.  What use is a spreadsheet if you know
nothing about business?  (or science or some application where you
need to USE the spreadsheet).

|I know I am going to flamed for this (where did I keep that giant
|fireproof safe :-)  I am not saying that all of my professors in the
|first years of my undergraduate program were bad, its just that there is
|something I think the whole program lacked.  Maybe if I went on to get my
|masters, I might be enlightened.  I don't know.  Maybe I might try and
|find out.

I don't know were you went to school, but the idea that Computer
Science is supposed to teach you everything is not true. (I don't
really think you meant that either.)  At TAMU, subjects such as Human
Computer Interaction, Computer Assisted Cooperative Work, and
Hypertext are presented as a combination of Computer Science domain
and Application domain issues.  The idea of Human Factors is an issue
of Psychology and Industrial Engineering as much as it is Computer
Science. 

Also, the issues of Software Engineering are as much management as
they are technical Computer Science.  The idea of Literate Programming
carries the issues of communication of the union of Computer Science
issues and Application issues to the software code itself.

The bottom line, I guess, is that Computer Science is composed of far
more than Analysis of Algorithms or Compiler Design.  The issues being
addressed today in Computer Science are many and do parallel the
issues in the commercial world. They are far more than surface issues.
   -- Bruce




--
Bruce Dubbs                   |  Oxymorons of note:
bdubbs@neuron.tamu.edu        |  Honest Politician, Political Science,
                              |  Scrupulous Lawyer
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy