Why all the CS Hate?

>Why all the CS Hate?
because all the pure science fellows are assblasted that computer scientists get all the jobs

Are all CSfags too brainlet to study CE/EE?

engineering jobs involve doing actual work
if I got one of those degrees I'd still just end up programming for a living because it's so much easier

no interest in hardware just the soft stuff

because CS has been perverted into something horrible over the years

it used to be a respectable amalgam of electronics, mathematics, and programming
but now it's
>muh enterprise OOP
>muh visual studio
>muh coding

>tfw currently studying cs
just end me now, senpai

Why the FUCK all of the "DURR WHY THE CS HATE???" threads? You fuckers literally make this thread everyday. Is peer validation so important to your pathetic, worthless egos? Do you really have so little self-esteem?

Just wanna know what's up, homes.

The sky. Now kill yourself.

Because mathematicians and physicists fear the computer.

Majoring in Mathematics with focus on CS. Did I fuck up?

CS majors are always the dumb slackers in my classes.

Because computers are a tool. It's like majoring in calculators, or in cleaning glassware. It's like majoring in how to clean toilets and believing you're a chemist.

It's not about computers. It's about studying mathematical models of computation.

CS is the new law degree. Its flooded with people getting it. I hope you guys are top tier with all the competition.

Students in Comp Sci seem to be true cuntlords a majority of the time

kys please.

>"cs isn't a real subject because they learn practical subjects alongside theory. It can't be called respectable unless you struggle to find a job after graduation"

>discipline which contains complexity theory not pure
complexity theory is purer than numerical mathematics you pleb

>complexity theory is purer than numerical mathematics you pleb

What the fuck are you talking about? Complexity Theory NEEDS a theory of numbers to be studied, as it is a quantitative field of study. Without numbers there is no complexity theory so algebra and number theory are 10 times more pure than complexity theory.

numbers are required for the descriptions and measurements of topics from complexity theory that we have created, but the core subject matter is much more fundamental. Algorithms exist whether numbers are real or not. Complexity theory describes what it is possible to do with an algorithm and to what extent. That's some real shit, doesn't rely on axiomatic structures, unlike numerical mathematics.

>Algorithms exist whether numbers are real or not.

This honestly sounds like bullshit. Sure, you can pretend this is true but implicitly you use numbers.

Furthermore, looking up problems in complexity theory I found that all statements start with a description using set theory

>A functional problem P is defined as a relation R(x,y) over a cartesian product over strings of an arbitrary alphabet E.

and Set Theory is a subject studied exclusively by mathematicians, so again pure mathematics is king.

Good luck finding a way to achieve anything without our superior set theory.

> That's some real shit, doesn't rely on axiomatic structures, unlike numerical mathematics.

If you are using sets then you are implicitly accepting our axioms.

For example, in the description of functional problems, how do you know that the cartesian product of an alpabet exists?

Well, it can be proven that the cartesian product of two sets exists using the axioms of ZFC directly.

So if you do not believe in axioms then whenever you study functional problems you would have to start your proof with:

>Well, the cartesian product of our alphabet may or may not exist, but if it exists then...

So you do have axioms, stop talking shit.

obviously complexity theory needs other pieces of mathematics to work, but that is besides the point in terms of purity. Mathematics implicitly uses algorithms all the time. The disciplines are inextricably intertwined in both directions. But algorithms are more fundamental things than numbers, regardless of how you define a cartesian product, an alphabet, or any other theoretical construct by which you examine algorithms.

That's right OP, CS is great! Us narutofags have to stick together!

>obviously complexity theory needs other pieces of mathematics to work, but that is besides the point in terms of purity.

If complexity theory needs other mathematical theories to exist then those mathematical theories are more fundamental.

This is like trying to argue that analytical geometry is purer than axiomatic geometry.

> Mathematics implicitly uses algorithms all the time.

Why do you say implicitly? The study of algorithms is one of the tiny, tiny branches coming out of the huge tree that is number theory. You can't say we work with algorithms implicitly when we directly call things algorithms in the study of number theory. Even way back then Euclid's division algorithm and the theorem that justifies its validity proved that algorithms were a tiny branch of number theory. And now that number theory has been generalize by algebra, the study of algorithms is now all over the place.

>But algorithms are more fundamental things than numbers

I don't know man. Numbers, at least the natural ones, are very simple sets. Meanwhile how would you define an algorithm? An ordered set of instructions? That does not sound fundamental at all.

so, what number theory is more pure because it's more ideologically dominant? Just like you need numbers to study algorithms, you need algorithms to do mathematics. As I said, they're inextricably intertwined in both directions. They both depend on each other. Thus you can't use dependence as an argument for the purity of one over the other.

I would loosely define an algorithm as an ordered process that answers a class of question. And I think that these things are more fundamental than numbers because of their immanence in any mode of thought or understanding.

Numbers are not just elements of sets. They are sets equipped with operations. Something is not a number unless you can do calculations ( operations ) with it.

A number is something that is part of a set and is well defined in terms of a set of operations.

An algorithm is a set of instructions based on numbers and the results of performed operations which are defined upon them with the purpose of solving a particular problem.

Algorithm: Wash the Dishes
while there's a dish left in the dirty dishes pile:
take a dish d
wash d
dry d
set d in the dish pile

no numbers required my dude

fucking Veeky Forums deleted my indents o well

>you need algorithms to do mathematics.

No you don't. The most important theorems are those that prove that solutions exist, while the theorems that construct solutions are merely foot notes.

In pure math no one cares about algorithms because once you can prove a solution exists then to keep proving more theorems you can simply say
>let a be a solution for...

without even knowing how that solution even looks like.

>I would loosely define an algorithm as an ordered process that answers a class of question.

If I was the one deciding I would say that ordered processes, classes and 'questions' are not even in themselves fundamental objects, so there is no way algorithms are fundamental.

>Numbers are not just elements of sets. They are sets equipped with operations.

No, numbers ARE just elements of sets. Sets of numbers equipped with operations are called algebraic structures, a whole different thing.

And sure, there is not much to talk about the sets of numbers without their corresponding structures but I would definitely say that the algebraic structure of the integers with addition and multiplication is still way more fundamental than algorithms.

Given that I suppose that you do not have a rigorous definition for "wash" or "dishes" or "take" or any word you put there, I see that you are simply using logic + the human language.

The human language is more complex than numbers.

So by trying to avoid numbers, you went into even less fundamental territory. Good job.

But I will be waiting for you to define all those words in sentences of logical symbols. Then maybe you are right.

If the object to be washed is the number then the washing part is the operation. If we don't know what washing an object should mean then we can't perform it. Clearly we need a few different numbers as each type of object does not have the same shape or requirements of tools and water and motions to become clean.

Also the flies is because of something sugarlike and not unwashed dishes and you totally deserve them if you are such a curious mofo.

ur also a major homo lmao

but you can easily see that they could be distilled down to a discretely parsable language like.. say.. I dunno a programming language? this complaint is silly.

uhh.. why must we describe these things with numbers? Using numbers is just one of an enormous assortment of implementations for this algorithm. the important thing is the idea, not the implementation, my dude.

they are fundamental for the understanding of information itself

Category theory > all

This.

Veeky Forums hurts my feefees when they shit on my graduate level combinatorial optimization algorithmics

It's very different.

I'm interested in algorithms and distributed systems, not embedded and circuits.

Computer Science is Applied Mathematics.

Want to compute the nth fibonacci number? This suddenly becomes a computational problem.

How fast is it if you use the recursive standard definition? Is there a more efficient way to calculate it?

You can prove the run time of these two algorithms and then build up a computational model to implement this in real code.

Math & CS are the same but one is applied to computational devices and the study thereof.

In some cases you don't need a real computer at all... like when you study recursion theory

CE reporting in, wish I did CS/Math, I'm so tired of writing fucking vhdl. It's not hader, just different.

>b-b-but muh ABET

Honestly I have a CS degree and I loved it but I just meme that it's terrible codemonkey shit one step away from being outsourced because I don't want it to get too saturated and to lose my negotiating power for 220k/year jobs in the valley

That's called CE or EE.

Real programming is mathematical & hard. I'm doing what I consider applied number theory and proving pure number theoretical results to write more efficient programs. I know these programs are efficient because of the theorems and lemmas im proving. Often times I won't write any code at all for days/hours because my headspace is spent around proving number theoretic results before I ever type code. But then again I majored in math and probably not like most of the other programmers.

lol rekt

haha retard

"Computer" "Science"
Much like "Holy" "Roman" "Empire"

Because computer science is not about computers nor science.

www2.lawrence.edu/fast/krebsbak/Research/Publications/pdf/fecs15.pdf

Not Science, not about Computers.

youtube.com/watch?v=zQLUPjefuWA

Because to write god tier code you need to combine like 8 different abstraction layers (code, ISA, compiler,EE,logic gates, binary numbers theory) and others, or you can just use Java and copy paste some for loop off stackoverflow and get paid the same amount as the 30 yo virgin that knows all above because no one in real world cares about that much performance optimization

Which isn't Computer Science. Fucking hell, is everyone on sci retarded?

>implementation of the algorithm not important

kill yourself my dude

it is in real life
speed counts more than tight code
get it out the door so the salesman can do his stuff
the bugs can be fixed later on

>It is in real life.

Are you retarded?

Because most CS majors don't like CS.

>But then again I majored in math and probably not like most of the other programmers.
At my school, CS is in the math faculty and CS students take all the same classes as math majors, although there's obviously not as many required math courses in upper years.

>because no one in real world cares about that much performance optimization
???

What planet do you guys live on? Performance at scale is a huge issue for a ton of software engineering and almost any good company will try to screen for its consideration during interviews.

idk I'm in CS and I hate it

I'm switching majors after this semester I just can't deal with it. Programming was fun at first but now it's just autistic as fuck.

Computer Science is an ass-tier field filled with autistic students and arrogant jack-ass educators

Same. Only have one semester left. Wish I didn't go for such a meme degree. I love all of the theory, but most of my peers just want shitty code monkey jobs.

Oh well, I have a digital art minor as well and my capstone for next semester requires us to make a video game, so maybe I can hate myself more for being a faggot indie dev as well as a software memegineer

Thanks for subscribing to my blog

CE student here. At school we use Linux with GCC, no OOP before second year and we still say programming.

its a flooded field because everyone thinks you can just casually pick up computer science.

>university has an event showcasing majors for incoming freshmen
>decent crowds around presenters for most majors
>CS has easily ten times the crowd

>CS has one of the highest failure rates as a department

CS student here, I think the high failure rate isn't because CS is harder than other majors, it is because most people expect something other than reality

>He's a "Real Programming" memer.
LUL desu senpai LUL