Re:Why Science Majors Change Their Minds
by partition on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @07:38PM
(#3241099)
I think we actually agree. I too feel that computer science these days is gibberish relying on the form but not substance of mathematical proofs to convey superior status, whereas "why" systems worked back then didn't require mathemtical _gibberish_ to explain, but were actually very well rooted in mathematical reasoning.
Re:Why Science Majors Change Their Minds
by pnathan on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @09:02PM
(#3241364)
As I edit my thesis, I am observing the sad state of my own technical writing ability. Can you point me to a paper you find clear and in good taste?
Re:Why Science Majors Change Their Minds
by rayiner on Tuesday November 15, 2011 @09:16PM
(#3241405)
I think Preston Brigg's PhD thesis is great: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~mckinley/380C/lecs/briggs-thesis-1...
This is also great: http://hall.org.ua/halls/wizzard/pdf/Vaughan.Pratt.TDOP.pdf
I disagree with this. Much of the product of computer science departments these days is mathematical gibberish. Pages of proofs written by extremely poor writers with nary a point in sight.
The heyday of computer science, in contrast, involved academics working on interesting problems and publishing readable work that was accessible to practitioners. For example, the papers that came out Rice's Scaler Compiler Group in the early 1990s are a model of clarity and good taste in academic writing.