HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:31:12 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Statistics Department

In article <1992Sep3.134133.22456@texhrc.uucp> ak45ldp@Texaco.com (Larry D. Pyeatt) writes:
>In article <BtwJGC.1F1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair) writes:
>|> zweben@linguine.cis.ohio-state.edu (Stu Zweben) writes:

>|> >This is one of the main reasons that the Computing Sciences Accreditation
>|> >Board was formed by ACM and IEEE-CS in the mid-80s.  Programs that are
>|> >accredited through CSAB must require 2/5 of a year of science (four courses,
>|> >including the equivalent of a two-semester sequence in a lab science for
>|> >science majors, and ...

>|>    I do not see why somebody intending to programming work, even in a real
>|> world setting, needs two semesters of lab science.

>If all you want to do is program, you don't need a CS degree.  You can get 
>a degree in MIS or Computer Engineering.  MIS degrees prepare one for
>programming in a buisness setting.  CE is a more broad than MIS, with a
>software/hardware engineering slant.  CS is more science than engineering.
>However, it is a science of "how things should be" as much as it is a 
>science of "how things are."

There is nothing for which a degree should be required.  What counts is the
knowledge and ability, not grades and credits, and at this time, all a degree
shows is grades and credits.  The only programming now taught to any extent
is the use of inadequate HLLs, with not understanding of the real job of
programming, which is to use the power of the machine to solve the problem
of the user in such a manner as not to waste time and money.

A degree in MIS will prepare one for certain types of programming in certain
settings.  A CE degree will probably not prepare the student for even being
of limited assistance to, for example, a scientist who has a real programming
problem.  The degree holder will not know enough more than the scientist who
only knows Fortran.

CS, and mathematics, are not sciences, but arts.  They are not concerned with
properties of the world, but with structure.  It is the case that many 
"real world" situations fit closely enough into these structures that the
knowledge obtained from the study of the structures is directly applicable.

In particular, the obtaining of numerical and symbolic results by the use
of computers involves the application of one abstract structure to another.
It does not involve theorems and proofs, but the application of concepts,
and not necessarily routine manipulations.
-- 
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Phone: (317)494-6054
hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet)  
{purdue,pur-ee}!pop.stat!hrubin(UUCP)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: sloan@cis.uab.edu (Kenneth Sloan)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: CIS, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:24:34 GMT

In article <BtwJGC.1F1@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair) writes:
>zweben@linguine.cis.ohio-state.edu (Stu Zweben) writes:
>
>>This is one of the main reasons that the Computing Sciences Accreditation
>>Board was formed by ACM and IEEE-CS in the mid-80s.  Programs that are
>>accredited through CSAB must require 2/5 of a year of science (four courses,
>>including the equivalent of a two-semester sequence in a lab science for
>>science majors, and ...
>
>   I do not see why somebody intending to programming work, even in a real
>world setting, needs two semesters of lab science.
I do not see why somebody intending to do programming work, even in a
real world setting, needs a college degree at all.

[of course, I also do not see why any self-respecting degree program
needs the trappings and hassle of dealing with the CSAB]




-- 
Kenneth Sloan                   Computer and Information Sciences
sloan@cis.uab.edu               University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213                  115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station 
(205) 934-5473 FAX              Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1473 comp.lang.fortran:3363 comp.lang.misc:2878 comp.arch:9154 sci.math:10835
From: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:23:02 GMT
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA

801@dcc.uchile.cl>
Reply-To: jesup@cbmvax.commodore.com (Randell Jesup)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Keywords: 

pchris@dcc.uchile.cl writes:
>They did hire one programmer and basically she couldn't do much useful 
>programming in the nuclear codes (anyway, a BS in CS is going to tell a
>Doctor in Physics how to structure his code? ;-).  She winded up making
>pretty shell scripts and moving data off and on tapes......

	I would hope that they hired an MS with a specialty in NumComp.
It sounds like they hired a CompSci BS with little or no NumComp experience.
(We were all required to take NumComp at RPI, but you weren't required to do
more than that one course for your BS.  They were there if you wanted them.)

     Also, an inexperienced CS major can be pretty lost when dumped into a real
job - Dennis O'Connor will remember one random RPI CS major we got a GE.  She
had talent and eventually did fine after a few months of learning about real
code, but when she started she wrote giant spaghetti programs.  This isn't
unusual in fresh CS majors, since they've usually never had to maintain any
of the code they wrote.  (For that matter, a lot of MS and PhD's haven't
either...)

	To bring this back to the point (scientific programming), when
scientist look for programmers to aid them, they have to learn what to look
for, and what questions to ask.  Maybe eventually there will be majors or
at least sub-catagories for things like scientific programming, as the field
grows larger, more mature, and more specialized.

-- 
"Rev on the redline, you're on your own; seems like a lifetime, but soon it's
 gone..."  Foreigner
-
Randell Jesup, Jack-of-quite-a-few-trades, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Disclaimer: Nothing I say is anything other than my personal opinion.
From: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman fpgroup)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: scientists as programmers (was: Small Language Wanted)
Followup-To: comp.edu
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:24:21
Organization: Sun MegaSystems
NNTP-Posting-Host: chiba
In-reply-to: mstemper@ems.cdc.com's message of 28 Aug 92 17:50:10 GMT


>.,...top down design as applied to science programming ....

Often we *don't* understand the physical reality. *That* is why they
pay (paid) us the big (medium sized at best; lawyers get the large
sized numbers) bucks.

However, the details of the advice given are good. It is important,
however, to not forget to iterate and *update* all those nifty
comments when the data comes in, we change our understanding of the
underlying reality, and alter the code.

Virtually all large long lived system evolve that way; very few are
designed from scratch to be what they become.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith H. Bierman    keith.bierman@Sun.COM| khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM
SunPro 2550 Garcia MTV 12-33             | (415 336 2648) fax 964 0946
Mountain View, CA 94043  <speaking for myself, not Sun*> Copyright 1992

Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran
From: john@aquarius.unm.edu (John Prentice)
Subject: Re: Modern languages: F90, C++, etc... (Was: scientists as programmers)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 05:56:58 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Physics & Astro, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

In article <9224015.18703@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON) writes:
>
>Actually I think that C++ would be a good language to use even if you
>*didn't* use any of the OOP features, ie. just using C++ as a better C.
>Just grab M++ or some other class library off-the-shelf and then
>use C++ like a conventional language.
>
>Then the extra features of C++ are available if you need them.

Fair enough.

John
-- 
Dr. John K. Prentice                      
Partner, Quetzal Computational Associates    
3200 Carlisle N.E., Albuquerque, NM   87110-1664; 505-889-4543
john@aquarius.unm.edu -or- jkprent@cs.sandia.gov -or- prentice@rufous.cs.unm.edu
Newsgroups: comp.edu
From: jlg@cochiti.lanl.gov (Jim Giles)
Subject: Re: Small Language Wanted
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 17:02:47 GMT

In article <WVENABLE.92Aug26154731@algona.stats.adelaide.edu.au>, wvenable@algona.stats.adelaide.edu.au (Bill Venables) writes:
|> [...]
|> Michal> - making use of case sensitivity (i.e. symbols 'value' and 'Value' in the
|> Michal>   same program)
|> Michal> - ...
|> 
|> I'll accept all the other points, but NOT this one.  The concept of "case"
|> is a printing artefact and makes no sense in this context.  What's wrong
|> with using all 52 letters in the character set?  What could be more natural
|> than using "x" for a singly indexed array and "X" for a doubly indexed one?

It would be rather like using "Tree" for conifers and "tRee" for deciduous
trees.  It's not the way people use names.

|> [...]
|> Most versions of Fortran now do allow mixed case input (thank goodness -
|> otherwise you would go deaf reading the stuff) but then to regard "i" and
|> "I" as the *same* is a absolute gotcha.

Why?  People always regard "tree" and "Tree" as the same (except the
latter may signal emphasis: a non-semantic concept; or the beginning
of a new sentence: a syntactic distinction; or a denotation that
the word is a proper noun: a categorization - again, just for emphasis;
it's never regarded as *meaning* something different).  Do you *really* 
have trouble with this characteristic of written English prose?  (If
you are arguing that case-sensitivity should have one of the above
functions, then I might agree with you.  What do you have in mind?
Otherwise, case should be no more significant than the choice of the
color of the character set/background or the font that's chosen to
produce the listing.)

While analogies to natural languages are always suspect (and sometimes
demonstrably wrong), I think the way people use words/identifiers is a 
case where the analogy is correct.  In any case, there are no human-factors
experiments which address this issue, though I've noticed more frequent
problems with case-sensitive languages.

-- 
J. Giles
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1393 comp.lang.fortran:3264 comp.lang.misc:2795 comp.arch:9084 sci.math:10672
From: bwallet@apssgi.nswc.navy.mil (Brad Wallet)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:01:49 GMT
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center

In article <BtpAIn.EE5@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>, hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
|> The problem is that the CS people are, in this sense, like the purissima
|> mathematicians (if it can be applied, it is time to work on something else.)
|> They concentrate on what no scientist is particularly worried about, like
|> making the printed output look neat, or even making life easy for the
|> compiler.  They talk about optimizing compilers, but when someone brings
|> up something which the current styles of optimization do not handle, they
|> still say that the programmer must not be allowed to intervene with the
|> product of the compiler, and things must be left to the compiler.

I think we, like just about everybody, are confusing computer scientist with
software engineers.  Computer scientist examine optimization techniques.
Software engineers rely upon optimizers.  We need both software engineers and
computer scientist, but they are not the same.

|> If we want to do good programming for scientists, both the hardware and
|> the software have to take into account what the scientists with imagination
|> can think of, not what those doing routine can envision.  The ideas of those
|> who make extensive use of the computer for number theory, for example, are
|> entirely ignored by both the hardware people and the language people.  And
|> it is almost official policy to make the use of machine language other than
|> through the inadequate high level languages at least very difficult.
|> 
|> Fortran is inadequate, Algol is inadequate, C, and even C++, is inadequate.
|> Even if a programmer can find a good way of mixing them, there is no
|> possibility of having one line in Fortran and the next in C. 

There is hope!  Anyone familiar with SGI's Explorer package?  Push button
programming.

-------------------------------------------------
Brad Wallet                 Mathematician
bwallet@relay.nswc.navy.mil Naval Surface Warfare Center
(703)663-4950               (AVN)249-4950
DSMAC - "Tomahawk's Eyes"
"I can neither confirm nor deny that these opinions
are entirely my own and may or may not reflect those
of the US Navy." 
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
From: glew@pdx007.intel.com (Andy Glew)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
	<1992Aug31.184805.10913@texhrc.uucp>
	<1992Sep1.185622.19345@rtsg.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 04:22:03 GMT


    Maybe some of our esteemed colleagues in the processor design fields can
    shed some light as to how much concurrent engineering is done on a project.

I'm not very esteemed, but I can tell you that there is enough
concurrent development to make your head spin.  Compilers are being
developed at the same time as microarchitecture at the same time as
critical circuits are being laid out at the same time as ... 

Hell! The previous generation of silicon that you have to be
compatible with is being developed at almost the same time!

I was told that one of the chief requirements for the position as
computer architect that I was interviewing for was the ability to
communicate. They hired me anyway.

--

Andy Glew, glew@ichips.intel.com
Intel Corp., M/S JF1-19, 5200 NE Elam Young Pkwy, 
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497

This is a private posting; it does not indicate opinions or positions
of Intel Corp.

Intel Inside (tm)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc
From: crawford@church.mitre.org (Randy Crawford)
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:38:04 GMT

In article <BtvI3A.MHA@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, brian@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Brian Boutel) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug31.211256.20455@a.cs.okstate.edu>, 
>                 hip@a.cs.okstate.edu (HUFFMAN BRADLEY SP) writes:
> 
> |> Since accountants must take continuing education credits, I think professors
> |> should every 2 years be forced to go work in industry for 3 months.
> 
> Why? What would they learn that wasn't evident 2, 4 or 10 years previously, apart from a few fashionable buzz-words?

They would learn which skills are _necessary_ to deliver software on time
and in a reusable fashion.  Ten years ago, how many profs had any sense of
the practical value in software reuse?  How many profs today have a good
appreciation of how much legacy code is out there?  Do they understand the
commercial value of a degree steeped in finite automata, computational 
complexity and turing machines?  Industry wants software engineers, not
computational scientists with BS degrees.

A little time spent in the commercial (or government) sector could do great
things to make profs aware of the current needs of the market.  They should
design their curriculums with the needs of today's marketplace in mind.
Why shouldn't operating systems classes be taught as half theory/half Unix?
Or a compiler class which teaches LR(1) parsing and illustrates LALR(1) using
LEX and YACC?  I've heard of a number of schools which implement compilers
in scheme or ML.  For god's sake, get a sense of what's useful and what's
not!

It takes several years in the workplace for the average BSCS to acquire the
skills necessary to understand and then build most modern applications, 
because today's apps are complex collections of components combining X Windows,
RPCs, sockets, Unix internals, and practical software engineering.  You don't
learn these in college, and that's dumb.  CS is a form of engineering, and 
until there's employment for theorists in the market, schools must temper 
theory with practice.  Certainly you don't see EE programs teaching power
systems or non-solid state technology.  Teaching practical CS labs using
techniques and tools which are decades old (like VAX assemblers or IBM/VM 
virtual memory) is inappropriate and a waste of tuition.  It's also damned 
poor preparation for getting and keeping a job.
-- 

| Randy Crawford        crawford@mitre.org        The MITRE Corporation
|                                                 7525 Colshire Dr., MS Z421
| N=1 -> P=NP           703 883-7940              McLean, VA  22102
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1452 comp.lang.fortran:3341 comp.lang.misc:2847 comp.arch:9130 sci.math:10802
From: pwestlak@eoe.co.uk (Peter Westlake)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: Re: Scientists as Programmers (was Re: Small Language Wanted)
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:23:12 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

The general consensus of this thread seems to be that very few people are
competent in programming and in an application area, especially that for
which they are hired. Specialization does help to some extent, but it makes
the chances of finding the right person even smaller. Certainly insisting that
computing students take science or business courses does not help, because the
courses are very simple and generalized - inevitably so, because the student
is trying to take a degree in computing at the same time! I doubt that there
will ever be a ready supply of people who are expert in computing and in an
application area. The answer, I suggest, lies in the original topic of this
thread: Small Languages. Rather than teach physicists (etc) computing or
vice-versa, give them a set of high-level types and operations with which
to program their applications for themselves.  These will be written
by someone who knows less about the science and more about programming.
The "knowledge gap" between computers and applications is so great that
several levels of abstraction may well be needed, each one hiding all the
details of the level below. Of course, doing this effectively is a research
goal in itself, but I suggest that it is a useful one to pursue.

To anticipate possible objections:

Multiple levels are inefficient:  not if efficiency is a goal. The levels
need not involve lots of code; they might be subroutine libraries or threaded
code, or some other scheme suitable for the job in question.

People writing the intermediate levels will still need to be experts in
more than one field: yes, but the field will be smaller. They don't need
to stretch all the way from computer hardware to advanced nuclear physics.
Also the languages will be reusable by other people working in the field,
the more so the lower the level.

P.S. Sorry if this is posted twice - I'm trying to find out why it happens.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Peter M Westlake                        EO Computer Ltd.,
Tel: +223-843131                        Abberley House,  Granhams Road,
Fax: +223-843032                        Great Shelford,
email:  pwestlak@eoe.co.uk              Cambridge CB2 5LQ,   England
Newsgroups: comp.edu
From: Andrew.Stock@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Andrew Stock)
Subject: California University's info
Originator: astock@cantina.comp.vuw.ac.nz
Organization: Dept. of Comp. Sci., Victoria Uni. of Wellington, New Zealand.
Keywords: Send info
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:47:48 GMT


I am a New Zealand Computer Science student and I'm thinking about applying to
got to a Californian University for a year to study Computer Science.I wondered 
if any one has any information about which University's are the best for
particular Computer Science topics etc.AI is my main interest.The main
University's I'm interested in are Berkeley, Santa Cruz, Riverside, UCLA and
Santa Barbara.Any info you have would be appreciated.Thanks. 
Xref: sparky comp.edu:1454 comp.lang.fortran:3344 comp.lang.misc:2850 comp.arch:9132 sci.math:10808
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math
Subject: MIX Simulator?  (Was: Scientists as Programmers
Date: 3 Sep 92 06:08:52 GMT
	<1992Aug31.195540.13074@ctr.columbia.edu>
	<1992Sep1.115849.13522@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
	<Btx4vF.Jx6@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
	<1992Sep2.124117.1302@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.


There are enough people who are good at both programming, computer
science and science and math that it is not useful to distinguish
between programmers and scientists in terms of their computer
literacy and programming abilities and attitudes. We have everyone
segregated into departments, but it really doesn't mean anything.

Donald Knuth is one computer scientist and programmer who can also
do mathematics and also happens to write very well. I've particularly
enjoyed his Art of COmputer PRogramming, his books on TeX and METAFONT
and his work on Literate Programming.

I would be interested in having a simulator for his mythical MIX machine
and don't have time or energy to write one myself. Does anyone know
where one can ftp one? I think availability of such a simulator would
be a useful aid to reading his book, even if it seems contrary to the
spirit of the book to have a real machine to work with. The exercises
do involve writing in MIX and why not have a tool for working with it?

The MIX machine is supposed to be independent of considerations like
base 2 or 3 or 10 or whatever, within certain limits. So the
simulation would have to have the ability to change its base. And it
has some peripherals, which one would also want to simulate.

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: comp.edu,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.misc,comp.arch,sci.math