Re:Tribes of Programming (2017)
by munchbunny on Monday December 28, 2020 @07:10PM
(#25564961)
I don’t think the distinction is necessarily unique to software.
To run with the physics/particle accelerators analogy, someone still has to build and run CERN, and plenty of talent is needed to make CERN possible, many of whom are probably physicists of a different “tribe”.
We may all learn similar fundamentals and take different views on the “right way” to look at our craft, but for better or worse we’re tied together by shared knowledge.
Re:Tribes of Programming (2017)
by BossingAround on Tuesday December 29, 2020 @02:01PM
(#25573432)
> Perhaps we're simply confusing CS with software development, which I suppose could be likened to confusing mathematics with accounting.
I think the confusion stems from the amazingly vocal community of people who claim how a degree in CS (whichever level) made them amazingly better at software development/engineering.
I can imagine how a CS degree can help you with pure functional programing, or with designing distributed systems.
"It's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators."
I sort of agree, but I guess it depends on what we mean about computer science being about computers. We can do things now that were downright impossible when A&S recorded their Lisp lectures simply because we can think differently about what's reasonable with regards to time and space complexity. And, of course, Abelson himself jokes about everyone wanting a faster computer in a later lecture.
Perhaps we're simply confusing CS with software development, which I suppose could be likened to confusing mathematics with accounting.