Talk:Computer science/Archive 2

message: I replaced this paragraph from the section entitled "Debate over name", and renamed that section. It is not clear from the (uncited) paragraph what this "debate" is, who debates it, or its importance. Surely if this is a real "debate" then there would be some papers or letters or something in which practitioners take sides:
:There is some debate over whether the name of the field should be computer science, computational engineering, or software engineering. The first name is the original, traditional name, however it implies that CS studies computers. The second name is more recent, and it implies that CS studies what we do with computers. The third name recognizes that mostly the field studies software.
What's more, this para treats "software engineering" as an alternate name for computer science. This is not a usage I'm familiar with. As described in the software engineering article, software engineering is an attempt to apply engineering methodology to software production -- the managing and work of programming. It is not the same as computer science.
I've replaced this para with one that does not pretend to describe a "debate" but rather simply the perceived inaccuracy of the name "computer science". If anyone has any sources for particular positions people have taken on names for the discipline, feel free to reintroduce the "debate" meme. --FOo 05:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Debate over name" incoherent para 

message: hey, guys: New template: comp-sci-stub . thank you ABCD Use appropriately. I was horrified with the use of computer-stub. Thanks.
Computer Science for lyfe! :D
Project2501a 19:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  comp-sci-stub 

message: a picture of TAOCP is not an adequate symbol for computer science; you wouldn't show a picture of a biology book when describing biology
Somebody get me a pic of a coke bottle and a pic of a young geek reading slashdot and looking at porn ^_^
or we need a pic of um a long-bearded, long-hair older man screaming his windows box :D
in all seriousness, i'd like to point that i created Category:Wikipedian computer scientists go register ^_^
Project2501a 22:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  *chuckle* 

message: I think that N. Chomsky should also be included in the list of pioneers in Computer Science. Almost in every introduction book to CS theory, you can see his "Chomsky Hierarchy"...
:I agree. My second class of Discrete structures focused solely on the Chomsky Hierarchy and the related models of computation for each level of the hierarchy. Fascinating stuff btw, Chomsky is an Einstein of our generation.  -WilyCoder
::Dr. Chomsky's Hierarchy describes a formal way for describing any complete grammar. Since computer languages tend to be complete grammars, they most certainly take from the Chomsky Hierarchy. In fact, Dr. Knuth once suggested in an ACM conference that there should be a C somewhere in the BNF acronym, in honor of Dr. Chomsky.
:: But, CS is a multi-disciple science and in this case it takes loan from linguistics, which is the area Dr. Chomsky applied his theory in, to assist humans to communicate with computers. I don't think that Dr. Chomsky has done any work with or on computer science, and that is why I don't think we should mention him as one of the pioneers of CS. what we CAN describe him as is a pioneer in the area of context-free grammars, which compiler theory could not do without.
::If i had to give out a metaphore, i'd say it's like saying that Kurt Gödel should be mentioned as a pioneer of the field because Automata theory comes out his work on logic and set theory. Project2501a 19:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pioneers 

message: Here are a few as requested. - Mr. B
* computer - "Originally, a "computer" (sometimes spelled "computor") was a person who performed numerical calculations under the direction of a mathematician"
* history of computing - "People were computers, as a job title, and used calculators to evaluate expressions."
* Computer History - "The first computers were people!"; "Computer was originally a job title"
Do you need more?
I've noticed a lot of sources use a timeline of computing of late BC. Those timelines generally follow those that used numerical methods. It is of interest to me why those timelines don't show other non-numerical devices, like the great pyramids which had devices to compare (compute) locations of stars and planets. ---- Mr. Ballard 23:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I fully agree that the term "computer" archaically referred to people whose job was arithmetic. But that isn't what I asked you for sources on. I asked you for sources on your claim that the expression "computer science" was ever used to refer to what human computers did. --FOo 17:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. You don't point out exactly in what terms the referenence is used (of what you request), but I assume you don't mean you want something that specifically states "Mr. Blah did computer science in 1910 by hand." It won't be that easy to find. Oh, I can cite sources if needed, and I'll only give a summary for now.
* Only after 1940s what used to be "computing machines" before became to be known as "computers." 
* The suffix "er" describes a person, like "teach" and "-er." (Well, it used to until machines.)
* Physicist was the preferred titled until the scientific calculations were performed by computers.
* In the transition where computing machines became the computers, physicists became computer scientists, and what were human computers were replaced by artificial intelligence (which became a big part of computer science besides computation).
* With deduction applied to your question for sources on did human computers do "computer science," it is a tricky question since humans aren't considered artificially intelligent.
* However, the word "finger" is more of a modern invention then "digit."  Next time you try to pass a tricky question on me, I'll remind you to be sure to count your "dig it"s when you run out of toilet paper. ---- Mr. Ballard 00:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I see you don't actually have any sources for the idea that the term "computer science" was ever used with reference to human "computers". So I'll disregard that claim until you do, and will consider any further attempt to insert it into the article to be unacceptable. Thanks for your clarification. --FOo 03:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I see you like to jump to conclusions quickly without any serious debate. I stated I do have sources, but why didn't you even acknowledge what I gave so far. I could tell by your tricky question that you wanted to jump to conclusions, and knew I better state a summary (even the humorous part). I haven't seen you try to give any sources in contrast. ---- Mr. Ballard 14:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I read some articles to try to grasp your point of view more. I read the ones which express computer science isn't a science. Perhaps, it'll help to relate our arguments easier. One thing I've noticed in such "not science" arguments is that they only limit their subjects to high-level practices instead of lower-level tangents to physics. It is those lower-level pieces that allow the higher-level to exist. When people walk up to a computer, they see the higher-level machine. They have no clue what happens at the low-level. Much hard work has been done to automate the computations and the physics. We don't use big clanky steam powered machinery, anymore, for our day to day web browser! It's like something magical to non computer users.
Non computer users tend to seperate realty between what a computer is and not. A non computer user would never allow themselves to be considered a computer. The computer today, however, was very much intended to replace the computer, which was human, of yesterday.
The whole process to replace the (human) computer (or to automate computations) into machinery started computer science. It's not about the computer. It's about what can be done to replace the computer. Although mathematics was used heavily, artificial intelligence was more significant in computer science. Those that argue computation (mathematically) is what computer science is about also tend to argue that the science started well before physics. Since computers performed many physics based calculations, I doubt that is true. We could argue that artificial intelligence started way before computer science, but it couldn't be scientifically prooven until the tangents between physics and computer science existed, which they do now. Those tangents are the foundations of computer science.
One earlier psuedo artificial intelligence shown was the abacus. It wasn't a computer. It was a state machine, memory. People had to physically move the beads into their positional states. It served as a memory device to allow one perform other calculations. Pencils and pens are much more abundant now, we don't need the abacus anymore. It wasn't much of artificial intelligence because the abacus didn't think for itself. The abacus had a computer to think, and the abacus was the the computer's memory. It was a physical device which science can proove works.
My fascination is with cybernetic biotechnology. Computer science really doesn't exist yet until we have fully proven computers (the non human kind) can think for themselves. Until then, we have cybernetic biotechnology. Until then, we still have human computers because to compute means to think, and yesterday's machinery still hasn't thought by itself. We do have solid foundations of computer science, fortunately. ---- Mr. Ballard 00:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics, Computers, and Cybernetic Biotechnology 

message: I just did a bit of a cleanup edit, mainly affecting the summary which was really terrible (sorry...). Some quick notes:
* If you want to argue about the definition of computer science you can now do so here: Definition of computer science .. have fun. I created it, moved content over, and linked it in very prominently.
* The history section needs work. The material here should be moved to History of computing and then that article should be re-summarized here.
* There's a LOT of duplication between "Fields of computer science" and "Major fields of importance for computer science"... (and the second one, is just a list, which should probably be done with a category or something)
* Etc....
Sbwoodside 08:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really an improvement. This article should be a substantive summary of the field, not an index of links. The definition is exactly appropriate for this article, not a separate article; if you delete the unsourced and unsupported  opinions of amateurs, it's really not that complicated. But I'm tired of people mangling this article, so I think I'm going to take it off my watchlist - have at it. Stan 14:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The argument about the definition should not be carried out in the summary of the article. Sbwoodside 00:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Another view: I am involved with the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and this article is one of about 160 we have listed as a core topic (a "must have") for the print/CD version of Wikipedia. I am not an expert in this field, but I agree with the assessment from a few weeks back by a colleague on the project, "Usable, much of it is a list, no refs."  I wonder if it would be possible to (a) distil some of the content of textbooks in the field to describe the main aspects (this would provide some references too) and (b) rewrite some of the long lists in another more encyclopedic format? I suspect a lot of this could be done without controversy and disagreement. Thanks, Walkerma 06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: User:Jhballard why did you want to avoid a definition in the summary? Have a look at WP:LEAD - "the perfect article: Begins with a definition or clear description of the subject at hand. This is made as absolutely clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter itself will allow." Sbwoodside 00:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The computer science definition is obviously much argued. I believe the scientific point of view is of use besides WP:NOR to determine the best definition, as there seems to be no majority consent to any specific definition. Based on the scientific points, we know the computer science has principles as well as it became a discipline. I'm sure the difficult part is that we are pretty familiar with the slang associated with computer science and computers. We can make it a clear description of computer science and avoid a definition of endless edit wars. ---- Mr. Ballard 15:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence should be a definition. If we can't come up with a specific definition, we should provide a broad definition and state its limitations. Hence my proposed "Computer science is broadly the study of computers and computation" -- what's wrong with it?. Fredrik | tc 20:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One would argue that computer science is a body of knowledge and to study it is optional -- especially since we have computers with a limited application of artificial intelligence that can study computation for the user. Anothewords, one doesn't have to principally study computers or computation to be involved with computer science. The debate on these talk pages have brought up many different definitions that proven it's not so simple to define or at least argee on a definition. Let's try a clear description for awhile and see if we can determine a good definition later. ---- Mr. Ballard 21:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're interpreting the word "study" way too narrowly. It also means, per dictionary.com, "a branch of knowledge". Fredrik | tc 21:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This article used to have as clear a definition as is possible for this field, and since then it's been mangled by hamhanded and amateurish attempts to invent new definitions. Mr. Ballard's hairsplitting is completely unhelpful, and as far as I can tell he is the only one for whom "it's not so simple to define". Actual computer scientists have a pretty good idea of what their day job is, and don't actually argue about the definition of the field. Stan 23:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: How about "Computer science the discipline involved with computers and computation." I agree that studying isn't broad enough since it doesn't include the practice of computer science. Stan : can you point to a previous version that you thought was good? Do you mean this one: "Computer science (informally: CS or compsci) is, in its most general sense, the study of computation and information processing, both in hardware and in software. " ( Sbwoodside 02:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Powo, what the first sentence says now: "Computer science is a discipline that deals with all areas of computation" seems like it's effectively the same statement. As far as the rest of it goes, it's clear that we can't please everyone. As you say, in the spirit of NPOV, we have to include the operational summary even if it's not the definition a purist might choose. I think that it's worth covering that there's a disagreement over the definition - especially in Definition of computer science. The problem that arises is when that discussion becomes a barrier to having a useful summary for newcomers to the topic. Sbwoodside 04:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, sure I agree to your sensible point of view. I have looked at the CS page in french. It is broad too... In french, CS translates to "informatics". The term "Informatics" is not not as implicitely related to the scientific aspects of CS as the term "Computer Science" is. So... maybe it could be explained that in different context, CS englobes more or less. The two extremes being academic and popular language contexts. However, my non NPOV is that emphasis should be more on the academic side than on the popular language side.--Powo 08:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I can't figure out what you're trying to say now - "against to make"? "specifically of academia"? That's not even coherent English anymore. Stan 14:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your style is different, Stan. Some say "to make" while others say "making." — Dzonatas 05:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually not - my "style" is to use correct English. English does have grammar rules. Stan 00:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are so knowledgeable, you should offer help, instead. How would you like it if someone publicly accused you of grammar usage? Just like there are better ways to write in the English language, don't you think there are better ways to make your point? Perhaps, there is an e-mail link on the user page to communicate things that are really unrelated to the article, or that are personal and can be avoided in public forum. Thank you. — Dzonatas 01:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If I use bad grammar, I expect to be called on it - happens all the time in fact. The goal is to write with the best possible language, not to make excuses for badness. Stan 20:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''used "transpired" to avoid definition in opener, remerged examples'' why? 

message: My bad, it appears that History of computing isn't about computer science at all, but more like the history of bean counting and calculating the values of functions. There is not in fact any History of computer science article at all that I can find. History of computer science could either be covered here or in a new article. Sbwoodside 06:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of computer science 

message: Is this ridiculous or what? Here we have an article about a core topic that other people in Wikipedia are saying  is one of the most important articles in the wikipedia, and every day there's a crazy new summary? I have a degree in CS and I have to read pages and pages of arguments to find out what the heck "mechanistic" means and here it is in the first sentence of the whole article.
Dzonatas and others, please read WP:LEAD. 
:The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
Does this article explain what "mechanistic explanation" is? No, it does not! So if you're going to stick that in the lead, write a section on it, explaining what it means -- first!
Please -- the summary of this article should follow the guidelines in WP:LEAD -- and if it isn't, I consider that good grounds for reversion. Which I am now going to do with the "mechanistic" bit. Sbwoodside 05:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You know you're losing on clarity when you need to quote dictionary definitions. Now think of a way to define CS such that a 15-year-old (for instance, one wondering about college majors) will understand without having to parse von Neumann's philosophical musings. Stan 17:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess that is why I wrote "in the mean time" so I can go focus on something else for awhile and not deeply explain how to look it up. — Dzonatas 12:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: If it helps, I wrote a computation stub.--Powo 19:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it will! — Dzonatas 12:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "extent and limitations of mechanistic explanation"?????!!!!! 

message: Powo has stated above that the writers of the article should only be computer scientists. Unfortunately, it does not work that way. If there was such a rule, most of the content in wikipedia would never get written because of the tedious job to find someone that would be so consensually deemed qualified to write. That is what non open content encyclopedias do because they get paid for it to hold a certain reputation. That is also their downfall as those encyclopedias lack information from a larger resourceful population. 
Technically punny: if we let this article only be written by computer scientist, then they aren't doing their job. Computer scientist are theorists, researchers, and inventors. They aren't editors, so why are they here? I'm sure the computer scientist that have so professed that their wisdom is so great here that they have judged all others as to be excluded in any attempt to write on the article surely would not let any technical detail such as the benefits of open content to be so unfamiliar to them. Perhaps, those computer scientist that profess such great wisdom should write their own version of wikipedia that prohibits anybody except doctors of philosophy to edit content. They can further provide a website for their content. They could even run their own server for their website. If the information is truly worthwhile, they can put up hit-counters and advertisements and get paid for it. Nevertheless, they have come here but only to tout themselves and taunt others.
Fortunately, wikipedia is much more open than that. — Dzonatas 12:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with Powo that only subject-matter experts should contribute to articles, but the ability to write good expository English is imperative. I don't really like to make blanket criticisms, but Dzonatas, your style is consistently impenetrable, both linguistically, and in the lines of argument. In addition, you come across as sure that you're always right about all this. These make a bad mix, because the net effect is that you replace clear text with unclear text, and then aggressively insist that it's an improvement, even if nobody else thinks so. Yes, WP is open enough to let the less-capable undo the work of the more-capable, but this is not considered a feature. WP's official mission is to produce a free encyclopedia, and the wiki process is simply an implementation technique; as with the recent move to disable page creation by anonymous editors, if openness interferes with the official mission, it will be pinched down. I think it's quite likely that at some point, article edits will have to go through a review process, just as is done for patches to GNU, Linux, etc. Stan 13:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll admit that I commonly write in a "technical" style. That is still by no means to say that it is bad English. I just use words more based on what they mean rather than how they sound in spoken English. I'm not alone with this trait, as it is common with 45% of  people that are not primarily auditory. What seems clearly written to an auditory person is not always as clear to a kinetic or visual person. Just because there are more auditory people doesn't mean auditory types don't have to improve to also write for kinetic and visual people, and auditory types should recognize this and understand who they call less-capable or more-capable, or even just to go to the point to even suggest that a some degree of a determination be made. A computer scientist that works with artificial intelligence would not ignore these three major differences on how people learn and express themselves. Also, I've have even suggested a version certification process that would help point out article versions that can be accredited or tagged in various ways. It isn't proven, but we could prevent revert wars and encourage more discussion with such process. I agree with you that expository English is imperative, but the existence of two viewpoints doesn't mean only one is right by default. I'm not always right, and I don't try to be perfect, and I don't expect perfection. I expect effort, and I hope you do also. — Dzonatas 15:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  What does this mean??? Am I the only one not understanding?--Powo 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is what I mean by poor English skill - has nothing to do with auditory/visual or any of that. The paragraph above is sorely lacking commas (frequently critical to correct parsing, as in the classic phrase about the panda who "eats, shoots, and leaves"). The garbled "go to the point to even suggest" was probably supposed to be "go to the point of even suggesting" (even my short time in academia involved a certain amount of semantic reconstruction). There are also a number of sidetracks and nonsequiturs (what does AI have to do with anything?). Writing skill is something that has to be cultivated independently of technical ability; a large number of techies just assume that they're doing OK since they never get critiqued by better writers (tech writers know better than to complain, they just quietly fix what they can). Stan 00:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay. Let me overview your paragraph above and see what I can point out, likewise. In "paragraph...is...lacking commas" is a passive construction. Many colleges do not accept passive voice. Frankly, there is no subject in that sentence. I know professors that would instantly fail an essay based on a single instance of passive voice found in the essay. One way to reword it: "the paragraph lacks commas." On the point of your reworded "suggesting" is a typical inappropriate use of a gerund. If you meant to use it as a noun, it would have been tolerable. The parenthesized phrases have no direct relation to the sentence or phrase for which they are found, so they should be reworded into seperate sentences to state the intended idea clearly. On the point about AI, it was one of many examples I could quickly jot down that demonstrates a relationship to CS knowledge. I've found more to point out, but that is enough. Anyways, lets focus on progress with the article. Please. — Dzonatas 02:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... and I rest my case. Stan 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  I agree entirely that non experts can contribute (and non computer scientist in this case) can surely add valuable contributions to this page. My claim was extreme, sorry about that. However, some people should question themselves about what they are so sure of, perticularly when many users with some clear expertise in CS and CS related fields disagree with them. Why refuse to learn from others, specially with more expertise in the field? Why refuse to change point of view? --Powo 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors of the Article