HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Subject: Re: Are programmers Computer Scientists?
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:41:39 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.174548.29169@ulowell.ulowell.edu> wex@cs.ulowell.edu writes:
>
>My question is: 
>
>	Just because someone programs (is required to program)
>	a. Is that person a Computer Scientist
>	b. Should that person be called a Computer Scientist.

Just because

	*  I install a new circuit breaker in the box and add a line
	   in the basement to a new light outlet...  am I an
	   electrician?

	*  I do my own taxes...  am I a tax specialist?

	*  I occasionally say dumb things... am I an idiot?

:-)

I think it depends on how much education they have, how they do their
job (methodically or slap together), how the job turns out (you should
have seen the result of several new water pipes I installed - instant
fire extinguisher), and many other criteria.

Many companies hire B.A.'s with a smidgen of computer courses and
expect them to write programs.  Some have a natural talent (but lack
experience and knowledge), others don't have the vaguest idea what a
well organized program is.

My comments above don't even address the "science" of CS.



-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391
When asked his position on euthanasia, our local state rep. responded:
"I support youth all over the world."
Newsgroups: comp.edu
From: tholen@galileo.ifa.hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
Subject: Re: Small Language Wanted
Organization: University of Hawaii
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 00:55:55 GMT

I wrote in response to someone else's posting about how computed GOTOs
prevented programmers from writing structured FORTRAN:

> And if the elimination of computed GO TOs will
> help make FORTRAN more structured, then you can simply not use them.

And Marty Cohen responded:

> In Fortran 77 there is no way to code a while loop without using a GOTO.

Um, I think you read my posting a bit too fast.  The original poster was
complaining about computed GOTOs.  You can still code a WHILE loop using
an unconditional GOTO.  In fact, the unconditional GOTO is the only type
of GOTO I use, and sparingly at that.
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1415 comp.lang.fortran:3294 comp.lang.misc:2814 comp.arch:9099 sci.math:10724
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:38:11 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <34742@cbmvax.commodore.com>, jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup) writes:

| 	I think whoever wrote that last paragraph is quite correct.  One
| should also remember that scientists are programmers of necessity: they
| program because they have to, not because they're good at it or (generally)
| like to do it.  This certainly doesn't improve the quality of the code,
| let alone the maintainability...

  The problem as I see it is that too many scientists and engineers
think that because they can write working code they don't need (or are)
programmers. Most people can learn to play the paino, but would agree
that they are not professional quality, even the "background music in a
piano bar" professional quality. Yet they think that programming
somehow requires less training, practice, and dare I say it, *talent*
than music.

  No optimizer will ever replace using the right algorithm to solve the
problem, no programming tool will ever generate meaningful names, no
automated indenter or pretty-printer will ever generate useful comments
or truly readable code. To do this even competently is a skill which
conspicuously eludes most people who don't write code for a living, and
to do this with consumate skill requires training, practice, and a
natural talent given to only a few people. 

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,sci.general,sci.math
From: zkdc05@trc.amoco.com (Kelly D. Crawford)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Originator: zkdc05@church
Organization: Amoco Production Company, Tulsa Research
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:26:25 GMT


Scientists in other (non-CS) fields don't have time to worry with learning how
to do better CS any more than they have time to learn any other discipline.  Why
do you think PhD's are offered in CS?  There is more to learn there than anyone
could ever hope to master.  The CS people are (typically) better at writing applications
than anyone, just like the geophysicists are better at what they do, the biologists are
better at what they do, etc.

Why is this such a mysterious problem?  It's very simple: egos are at stake.  This whole
thread is completely silly...

Kelly
-- 
Kelly D. Crawford             | Amoco Production Research | These are my own
kcrawford@trc.amoco.com       | 4502 East 41st Street     | opinions, not
phone: (918) 660-4043         | Tulsa, OK  74102          | Amoco's...
          >>> *** This line intentionally left blank *** <<<
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math,soc.college
From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Followup-To: comp.edu,soc.college
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 18:27:15 GMT

Just passing thru.
Rehashing olds topics I see.  (I remember when I brought this up before.)
Dejavu: not only on the net but I had this discussion with two physicists
in Santa Cruz on Sunday on a bike ride.

	"Beward that most dangerous of animals: a smart sheep."
					--Monty Python

While there is clear evidence that many physicists are in a Fortran grind
and could stand to learn some computer science (I have these battles all
the time) and vice versa, CS and physics people had better watch out.
A new breed of physicist/computer scientist is slowly emerging.

Thru time I've been helping my friend Bill (one of the physicists who helped
the chaos research start) in directing some of his learning about
computers [he uses a PC, quite adequate for his work in cosmology, but I
think he starting to need a workstation].
After giving him Kernighan and Pike, he generalized the hoc calculator with
Complex arithmetic (re: the C and C++ discussion), and then he went on
to add quaternions (do that in Fortran 77, this should put his
fellow physicists to shame).  He can swing lex and yacc code better than
I can.  He gladily mixes awk and TeX.  But I have yet to convince him of the
value of LISP [I'm trying] 8^).  He has written several chapters for a book
on lex/yacc for physicists.

At the same time, Bill is convinced that CS students, at least at Santa Cruz,
are some of the best and brightest students in the country, even better
than some of his physics students.  SO be aware that not all physicists
are like the LLNL-types mentioned by Gosper (great quote BTW, I sent it
to my ex-part time officemate whom works LLNL the rest of the time).

Bright people will be found regardless of their field: be it physics or
computing.  I know a couple of other physicists here who have written
compilers (if poor ones at that).

My piece of advice to CS majors still in school: Spend a little time
away from the computer lunching with non-CS types like physicists, chemists,
biologists, or doing hacking and a little socializing in those areas.
The real world does not behave "logically" [much less human nature].
There are great hackers in those disciplines and if you find several,
you can have tons of fun with them.  Richard Feynman did this throughout his
life, only really discovering computers late in life.
Bill was one of his students.  Beware of smart sheep.  Or become one.

The quaterion calculator is available from me as a shar file.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Second Favorite email message: Returned mail: Cannot send message for 3 days
A Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran
From: feldt@sarex.nhn.uoknor.edu (Andy Feldt)
Subject: Re: scientists as programmers (was: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 03:27:33 GMT

ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:

>jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:

>>In article <1992Aug25.154501.8654@colorado.edu>, ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett) writes:
>>|> [...] No offense to scientists, but I have rarely if ever seen a
>>|> scientist who was a good programmer. [...]

>>You must encounter a different set of scientists than I do.  Most of
>>the ones who develop code at all - that I deal with - are among the most 
>>talented programmers I've ever met.  Possibly this is not common at the 
>>*.edu sites.

>I agree with the original poster -- in general good scientists are
>focussed on their application areas and simply don't invest in knowing
>about computers.  Long experience often makes them good coders, but
>rarely good programmers.  Look at the accent on fortran, for example:
>how could a good programmer possibly use fortran?  It has to be the
>case of a person who wants to get a job done and doesn't take interest
>in the means.

>There are exceptions, of course.  Generally coinciding with the trend
>away from fortran.

>No .edu bias that I can see in this phenomenon.

>        -ans.


>-- 
>Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu

The use of Fortran among scientists is partly historical, but there is
another very good reason why most scientists I deal with (including
some of the best programmers I have seen) use Fortran - it produces
the fastest code for floating point arithematic and has complex
data types built-in to the language.  A good programmer chooses the
language which is best suited to his needs.  (I am biased towards those
needs that physicists and astronomers have, since that is my point
of reference...)


--
Andy Feldt
System Support Programmer
Department of Physics and Astronomy
The University of Oklahoma
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1462 comp.lang.fortran:3353 comp.lang.misc:2859
From: bremner@cs.sfu.ca (David Bremner)
Subject: Computer Scientists
Summary: Either they don't work with computers or they aren't scientists :-)
Keywords: Computer science education
Reply-To: bremner@cs.sfu.ca (David Bremner)
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:00:25 GMT

[I clobbered most of the newgroups; this has a fairly tenuous relationship 
to comp.arch et al]

In article <1992Aug31.211256.20455@a.cs.okstate.edu> hip@a.cs.okstate.edu (HUFFMAN BRADLEY SP) writes:
>Ha!
>
>You just reminded me of one of my favorite grips with "computer science", 
>every time I mention that "computer science" professors should try to 
>teach more real world problems I'm hit with the go old "We teach science,
>not coding".  Even had a professor ask me why I program in COBOL at my
>job, dumb founded at such a silly question I said "I like to eat".
>

This is an age old debate, both within computer science departments, (and in
a more general sense within academia as a whole), and in the "computing
community".  I have my own biases as a wannabe academic, but here goes
anyway. You should take it as given that anything that follows is just 
my opinion...

Part of the problem is that the part of computer science that is a science
in the traditional sense of science doesn't have all that much to do with
computers; rather it is about computING, about what kinds of questions are
easy for a quick calculating idiot to answer, and what kinds of questions
are hard.

Lest, I sound too much like the true theory bigot I am, the other half of
computer science, that of building (software or hardware) systems is (or
could be, if we were any good at it) a perfectly valid ENGINEERING
discipline.

Now it is clearly  no more reasonable to expect the first bunch of people to be
interested in programming in COBOL than to expect a theoretical physicist to
be interested in auto-mechanics.

Now the second bunch of people should be interested in solving real world
problems, and for the most part are; the catch is that they are interested
in solving NEW problems.  In Canada anyway, there are many different kinds
of post-secondary institutions. Various "Institutes of Technology", while
looked down upon by snooty university types, actually give people pretty
good preparation for solving the day to day problems that turn up.  Yup, you
guessed it, this is the optimal place to go if you want to learn to program
in COBOL.

The role of university computer scientists ( the second, practical bunch ), 
in my own warped little worldview, is not to properly produce square pegs to
fit into industries square holes, but to look for ways to move the state of 
the art forward.

Well, of course in the real world things don't work out this cleanly, but
this is getting long, and I'm not totally sure that that it is new and 
innovative. :-)


David
-- 
bremner@cs.sfu.ca 				          ubc-cs!fornax!bremner
From: r0mill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (COMPDIGEST)
Newsgroups: comp.edu.composition
Subject: (Fwd: *C&CD*) Transfering real life to Lit classes (7)
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:32:04 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

$undigest -s="Transferring real life to Lit classes (7)" [.new_news]cmpd6249.mss

Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 04:52:20 EDT
From:         IN%"RobertRoyar@Delphi.com" Robert Royar (C&CD Moderator)
Message-Id:   <1992Aug31.045220.1.Grendel.Lair@Cratylus>
Subject:      Transferring real life to Lit classes (7)
Reply-to:     IN%"R0MILL01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU"  C&CD
Organization: Cratylus Educational Software

In yesterday's (MBU-L) messages Myles Slatin <ENGMYLES@UBVMS.BITNET>
Message-id: <01GO76F2KN1CGDC437@ulkyvx.bitnet> asks how we might transfer
real-world situations for writing to our Lit classes.

I have had marginal success with a technique in a sohomore/junior-level
required course (students here (NYIT) may choose from a number of "lit"
courses in EITHER poetry, fiction, drama, or prose).  I've tried to develop
short writing prompts that attempt to tie the stories the students read into
their lives--prompts that allow them to show how some insight they found in a
story helped them reinterpret a past event or that allow them to develop their
own fiction based on their experience and the reading of the story.

I haven't found that any one level of student (i.e. the well prepared or the
under prepared) do well or poorly as a group on these assignments. Some very
poor writers can key into an important event in their past and show they've
digested the reading. And some very good writers can be extremely wooden in
their responses to this assignment.

 -- Robert Royar (RobertRoyar@Delphi.com) New York Institute of Technology

------------------------------
$deassign sys$output
Newsgroups: comp.edu.composition
From: r0mill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (COMPDIGEST)
Subject: (Fwd: *C&CD*) Re: Computers under glass (1536 chars) (1)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 09:51:05 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


Date:          Tue, 25 Aug 1992 11:24:52 EDT
From:          IN%"RobertRoyar@Delphi.com" Dan Quigley (dquigley)
Message-Id:    <1992Aug25.112452.1.Grendel.Lair@Cratylus>
Subject:       Re: Computers under glass (1536 chars) (1)
Organization:  Department of English, New York Institute of Technology
Local-Group:   composition.dig/1.c&c.replies #7
Reply-to:      "Computers and Composition Digest" <R0MILL01@ULKYVX.BITNET>

In response to the comments about putting computers in computer labs under
plexi glass topped desks, NYIT just went in the other direction after four
years of problems with the under desk furniture.  First, it made reaching the
computers rather difficult for the students AND the tech staff, particularly if
something went wrong.  The computers were suspended under the desk from a metal
bracket and we had a few occaisions of computers "crashing"--literally.  Also,
the computers seemed to pick up considerable dust from being so close to the
shuffling feet of students.  The plexi-glass desk tops also made seeing the
screen difficult when the overhead lights were on.  The problem went away if we
shut off the lights, but that led to a greater degree of "student-dozing" than
usuall.

Finally, and this last point has more to do, I think, with the approach Tech
took to introducing computers into writing classes, putting the computers under
the desks gave an all too ready excuse for faculty to ignore them.  All the
faculty were scheduled to teach writing classes one day a week in the lab,
whether they liked the idea or not.  But with the computers out of the way,
teachers could easily ignore the computers, and so we had a real discrepency in
computer use in writing classes.  As I said, I'm not sure I agree with the
twisted arm approach to introducing computers into the writing curriculum, but
the ease with which the computer classroom can become a regular classroom is
something to be considered.

Quig


------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.edu.composition
From: r0mill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (COMPDIGEST)
Subject: (Fwd: *C&CD*) Searching for Anne Villems (12)
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:00:25 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville


Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 04:38:08 EDT
From:         IN%"RobertRoyar@Delphi.com" Robert Royar (C&CD Moderator)
Message-Id:   <1992Aug26.043808.1.Grendel.Lair@Cratylus>
Subject:      Searching for Anne Villems (12)
Reply-to:     IN%"R0MILL01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU"  C&CD
Organization: Cratylus Educational Software

The current email address I have for Anne Villems bounces apparently because
the Soviet Union (.su) domain is no longer available.  Could someone tell me
either the new domain for Estonia (.es is spain is it not?), or could someone
who has better contact with Anne forward my request to her so she can update
our records to continue receiving the Digest.

The address I have which began to bounce last Friday, 21 August is
   "anne@ebc.tartu.ew.su"

Thanks,

 -- Robert Royar (RobertRoyar@Delphi.com) New York Institute of Technology
    "The average voter doesn't view himself as articulate, so I
    think they can understand the President."
                                                  -- Bob Teeter
                                                     Bush Campaign Manager

*************************************
From: r0mill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (COMPDIGEST)
Newsgroups: comp.edu.composition
Subject: (Fwd: *C&CD*) Comments on good and great papers (4)
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:31:55 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

$undigest -s="Comments on good and great papers (4)" [.new_news]cmpd6249.mss

Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gardner Campbell <Campbell@usdcsv.acusd.edu>
Message-id: <920830121344.1717@USDCSV.ACUSD.EDU>
Subject: Comments on good and great papers (4)
Reply-to: Computers & Composition Digest (R. Royar) <R0MILL01@ULKYVX.BITNET>

My I interject a word on behalf of the students who are good, even very
good writers trying to get better?  Several posts have suggested these
students don't *really* need our comments:  "they'd learn anyway" seems
to be the argument.  (And the bad writers don't care and thus ignore
our comments--education is impossible q.e.d.  But enough of that for now.)
I disagree.  Saying that the best students don't need us and will learn
on their own because they are good students represents the kind of logic
that made my own experience as a good student in the public school system
so miserable and (largely, but not always) a waste of time.  One of the things
I *loved* about college was that the quality of commentary on my papers
took a quantum leap upward.  My best teachers were an attentive and intelligent
audience I had never found before.  And their commentary taught me most
of what I know as a writer.

I imagine most of you on this list were good writers in college.  Didn't you
value what your teachers had to say about your papers?  Didn't you *need*
the direction and advice and support that commentary offered, the attentive-
ness it demonstrated?  Don't you think *our* good students do too?

"Elitist" is a good handful of mud to sling.  Stoop and pick it up if you
want.  But any system that ignores the needs of those who do well, or denies
that those needs exist, ends up serving (perhaps even encouraging) a very
homogeneous population of the uncommitted, the unmotivated, and often the
actively anti-intellectual.

*All* our students have needs, many of them very pressing needs, and those
needs are NOT limited to any one type or category of student.  Very often I
deliberately ratchet *up* my standards and critical discourse on my best
papers as a way of encouraging *every* student to do the very best work she or
he is capable of.

Can you tell this issue touches me on the raw?

Exit, pursued by a bear.

Gardner Campbell
Campbell@acusd.bitnet
Campbell@usdcsv.acusd.bitnet

------------------------------
$deassign sys$output
From: r0mill01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu (COMPDIGEST)
Newsgroups: comp.edu.composition
Subject: (Fwd: *C&CD*) Commenting or conferencing (6)
Date: 29 Aug 92 19:47:28 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

$undigest -s="Commenting or conferencing (6)" [.new_news]cmpd6247.mss

Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:00:02 EDT
From:         IN%"RobertRoyar@Delphi.com" Robert Royar (C&CD Moderator)
Message-Id:   <1992Aug29.150002.2.Grendel.Lair@Cratylus>
Subject:      Commenting or conferencing (6)
Reply-to:     IN%"R0MILL01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU"  C&CD
Organization: Cratylus Educational Software

Wes Chapman mentioned that he could no longer conference with his students
about their papers now that he teaches three courses [per semester] ("RE:
literacy, orality, & NeXT (*MBU*) (5)" in C&CDv6.246).  Our normal NYIT load is
five courses.  Basic writing is limited to 18 students; all other comp
courses are limited to 23; and lit courses are limited to 60.  I often have 120
or more students per semester writing 6-8 papers each.  Written comments are
usually out of the question--just do the math on the total and you get over 16
hours per week of paper grading (assuming you never spend more than 15 minutes
on a paper and assuming the papers all come in in an orderly fashion). Add to
this 20 hours for class time and office prep time and that leaves four hours
for "professional development and committee service".  It also assumes that the
prep time is spent only preparing for classes (i.e. no students need to see you
in that time, and that you can transport to class instantaneously--not always
possible on our 900 acre campus).  So what's my point?

In this climate I've practically abandoned written comments (except for
occasional end comments) in favor of conferences.  The death of our school's
copier repair contracts, has also reduced my handout use.  But I've slowed down
my presentation pace and use public speaking ploys to help my students take
better notes.  Funny thing is they seem to remember more now that they are
writing what they hear me say rather than reading what I've written.  I also
get more questions about assignments and their work than when the course was
full of written comments and handouts.

Of course your mileage may vary.

 -- Robert Royar (RobertRoyar@Delphi.com) New York Institute of Technology
    "The average voter doesn't view himself as articulate, so I
    think they can understand the President."
                                                  -- Bob Teeter
                                                     Bush Campaign Manager

*************************************
$deassign sys$output
Newsgroups: comp.edu.composition