Computer """science"""

>computer """science"""
>software """engineering"""
>"""theoretical""" C"""S"""
Why can't programmers content themselves with being the fleshy robots that they are?
It's not a science as there is experimentation nor inductive reasoning.
It's not engineering as no tangible product is made.
And it's no more theoretical than a switch being on vs off is theoretical.
So, why do programmers pretend to be something they're not?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science
de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Informatik&oldid=171939039#Etymologie
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_science&oldid=815086465#Etymology
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Informatics&oldid=813550629
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

is the extent of what you know about any of those majors the literal names of those majors?

Please, tell me all about how C"""S""" is actually a science that employs scientific methods, and how the only reason I don't know about that is because I'm not a code monkey.
Also:
>TCS
>a major

As a programmer I agree with you. The only acceptable terms are programming and software development.

>there is [no] experimentation
Neither is there any in mathematics

>nor inductive reasoning.
There's plenty of that.

>It's not engineering as no tangible product is made.
How is software not a product?

>Neither is there any in mathematics
Who mentioned mathematics?
>There's plenty of that.
Induction =! inductive reasoning
>How is software not a product?
When's the last time you touched a software?

>Can't touch software
>Therefore not a product

Not him. You are beyond retarded.

...

Software engineering is the only one that makes sense. You are literally engineering software. Although software is not a physical structure, it's still engineering.

>conflates software engineering with theoretical CS

Why are you such a faggot OP?

Theoretical computer science is literally a branch of mathematics, retard

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science

When's the last time you touched a woman?

the dentition of science is pretty flexible. For example, some people don't think theoretical ecology is a science because it doesn't generate testable predictions, but some think it is because is uses inductive reasoning. It literally just depends on your definition of science

The problem with this is that it leads to Waterfall-type thinking. Software is something that should be developed incrementally and needs maintenance and periodic overhauls. It's not something like a car where you plan it perfectly all in advance and then churn out copies.

Am I supposed to be triggered by this shit?
When writing baits like this you should include an actually believable argument in there somewhere.
Something which makes the reader go whoa.

This was overall very weak. I give 2/10 for effort.

If I'm asked to design and implement some kind of random number generator with specific characteristics then I'm doing programming too (and math). Many non code-monkey jobs require actual skills beyond calling REST APIs.
>>Neither is there any in mathematics
>Who mentioned mathematics?
A program is a mathematical construct, a model.
>>How is software not a product?
>When's the last time you touched a software?
Software is part of the machine, for example consider an embedded system for a specific job.
A programmer writes the software then writes it onto the flash memory. This causes physical changes inside the flash. That change is perfectly measurable, hell you could even "touch it". It's just microscopic.

SE is not classic engineering, but it can be fit into a broader definition of engineering.

CS is indeed not science. It's a sub-field of mathematics.
Computers are the only thing where practice and theory can easily be one and the same.

I would recommend you to actually learn what kind of stuff the people in those fields learn and do.
>as there is experimentation
Yes, there is. It's called profiling. Essentially you use it to do two things: experimentally verify the properties of a hardware aka a physical system or to indirectly measure the properties of an extremely complex system which would be very hard to do otherwise.

>It's not engineering as no tangible product is made.
This is an interesting point, because It's kind of a grey area. If I'm producing computationally fast models for approximation of JFET behavior for use in my computer simulation then am I doing engineering? My product will be possible due to the theoretical model I have made and yes, it's generally considered to be EE theory.
>And it's no more theoretical than a switch being on vs off is theoretical.
The people in CS are more concerned behind the theory of the switch rather than the switch itself. The switch is just a tool.

most science today is done using tools made by computer scientists/engineers, in some sense they are doing more science than you are, you are just the guy that gather the data and chug and plug it into the software systems.

Good work user, but most other people are still falling for it.

>employs scientific methods
Not the definition of "science". And can you please tell me what you think "the scientific method" actually is. 'Cause it's not some standard method that's easy and consistent. It's more like a collective of guidelines that you can selectively ignore parts of, most of the time.

This, breakthroughs are made using human logic and intuition and not a fixed set of guidelines.
Those guidelines are there to help you and give you a baseline, but they aren't there to solve you your problems.

>Software is part of the machine, for example consider an embedded system for a specific job.
>A programmer writes the software then writes it onto the flash memory. This causes physical changes inside the flash. That change is perfectly measurable, hell you could even "touch it". It's just microscopic.

As a REALLY short description:
I like to say that "computer science" basically concerns itself with machine-supported information processing.

>The people in CS are more concerned behind the theory of the switch rather than the switch itself. The switch is just a tool.
Well. Actually building and designing micro-electronics is a different field of study, isn't it.

CS would concern itself more with fitting the right parts together for the job or specifying what it expects from the target machine and then letting someone else design the electronics it needs as a base if Off-the-shelf parts are insufficient.

lose your girlfriend to a software engineer buddy?

No one gives a shit about chemical, civil, mechanical, electrical, industrial whatever the fuck physical engineering.

CS Is the future. Computer engineering, software engineering and computer science is where it’s at

You can't discount those totally. At least they are somewhat useful. Compared to other fields of study.

>>The people in CS are more concerned behind the theory of the switch rather than the switch itself. The switch is just a tool.
>Well. Actually building and designing micro-electronics is a different field of study, isn't it.
Yes, EE and possibly CompE, but that wasn't my point.
I meant mathematics, not the physics.

More in line with questions like this: "What makes a switch? How do we represent a switch? What different models can we use?"
Of course, in theoretical CS the switch can be replaced with a Turing machine and it's various equivalents.
That's why building computers when done right is an interdisciplinary field, you need to know the theory to make good hardware, at least a bit.
So moving forward we introduce various constraints akin to real hardware.

I know this is bait, but all of those fields are required to make a hardware which can run your software.

>I like to say that "computer science" basically concerns itself with machine-supported information processing.
Indeed and it also concerns itself with defining what that machine is. Doesn't care about the physics, but cares deeply about the theory. See Turing machine.
I don't think that definition is broad enough. CS also concerns itself with the machine itself, on a theoretical level.

>Indeed and it also concerns itself with defining what that machine is. Doesn't care about the physics, but cares deeply about the theory. See Turing machine.
>I don't think that definition is broad enough. CS also concerns itself with the machine itself, on a theoretical level.
Well. I might have said a few more explaining words, that I have forgotten now, but that sentence stuck with me. But that short simplified definition was for a laymen that asked me what it is about.

I was reasonably happy that I wasn't that far off:
>Informatik ist die „Wissenschaft von der systematischen Darstellung, Speicherung, Verarbeitung und Übertragung von Informationen, besonders der automatischen Verarbeitung mithilfe von Digitalrechnern“.
Wikipedia -> Google Translate
>Computer science is the "science of the systematic representation, storage, processing and transmission of information, especially the automatic processing by means of digital computers".
That part(?) of a definition seems to stem from a Lexica.

Yeh, I know what you mean and I agree. I just wanted to specify.
In fact, most people in the field do exactly what you said.
Working with Turing machines and related theory is kinda not the mainstream, it's a specific research interest.

I agree that Computer Science is a misnomer, but for a different reason. Because it isn't actually about computers, but computation. I like some of the earlier names better such as Computology, Data Science, Informatics, and Datalogy.

I guess "Informatik" is a better name than "Computerwissenschaften".

>Das Wort Informatik ist die Verschmelzung von Information und Mathematik.
>The word computer science is the fusion of information and mathematics.
Better not tell people that, lest they mention they are bad at Math.

de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Informatik&oldid=171939039#Etymologie
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_science&oldid=815086465#Etymology
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Informatics&oldid=813550629

>develop algorithms
>evaluate their performance based on simulations
>derive conclusions
How does this not follow the scientific method? It's arguably more "scientific" than contemporary physics which has pretty much developed into a religion.

this depends on your definitions of
science
engineering
theoretical

Oh, it's one of """those""" threads again...

Why does everyone seem to hate computer science here. Btw i'm planning to take electrical engineering or applied mathematics. Will we learn programming there too?

>scientists think they do complicated programming in their jobs
>most complicated data structure they use maybe a growing array that's provided the system
>have zero idea of its implementation or how it's allocated in heap memory
>probably have never heard of a heap and couldn't tell you the difference between stack-allocation and heap allocation
>probably still think that interpreted vs compiled is a valid way of categorizing PLs

the only thing you just told everyone is that you have no clue wht those degrees contain or are about whatsoever

computer science is more about maths than programming. maths is a science. there I told you

there is nothing wrong with computer science, somebody here decided it was bad and everyone else just jumped on the bandwagon since theyre sheep. when they post its pretty evident that they know fuckall about the subject

Real CS is called biology.

Yes, you'll learn programming. In a less theoretical way than CS students though, of course.

>>probably still think that interpreted vs compiled is a valid way of categorizing PLs
You could do runtime optimization with regular x86-exe's too, couldn't you? Though MS just optimizes the exe's so loops fit page boundaries and maybe some other stuff

Sounds like your scientist knows more than the average programmer

But not more than the average computer scientist.

as a compE it triggers me when csfags call themselves engineers. if you wanted to be an engineer, you should have done compE or EE. there's nothing wrong with CS, just be honest about it. actually, there are tons of people calling themselves engineering like "sales engineers" etc that trigger me also

Take an actual software engineering class based in ISO 9000 then reconsider your opinion. Also the same people that accredit your physics-engineering courses accredit my computer science courses so I could get a BS instead of a BA.

>It's not engineering as no tangible product is made.
A multi-trillion dollar software industry would like to have a word with you.

>multi-trillion dollar software industry
"What do you mean by 'regression'?"

It's usually companies doing it. Most programmers I know call themselves progrmamers, but their job titles are "software engineer".

c-can I call myself a "Computer Scientist"?

With a bachelors degree? Not likely. That would be like a guy with a BSc in Biology calling himself a Biologist or a guy with a Mathematics BSc calling himself a Mathematician.

>Computer Scientist
sure.

Though you should avoid mentioning an academic title you don't have after your name.

>Implying scientists don't have to take a programming class ever
Literally all of that shit is first semester introductory programming class material

>introductory programming class covering auto-growing data structures
That's how you know you're in a shit program that just wants you to be a code monkey. You gotta get your feet wet programming non-dynamic shit that way when they finally show you the create-a-new-immutable-string/array-and-copy method in your OOP course and using a linked list implementation in Data Structures you understand the importance of such details.

>call themselves engineers in home country
>don't study termodynamics
nice joke, codemonkeys

you're still not scientists. I will grant that you're engineers, not mathematicians or scientists tho. I'm truly sorry codenigger

> computer science
from what I recall a Network Administrator course I flunked out of because it was a flop and cash grab for gubberment funds... its all Rote behavior, acronym to OS/part function, and running basic stuff
> software engineer
The hardware has levers and switches on an electronic level, so... by their reasoning putting a device in motion then setting it up to do something later that the user desires is "being an engineer". But the hardware was engineered, while even the basic codes run over the OS and that runs over a machine assembly version in the bios/other-firmware on the board.

While code has a series of commands that are elaborate functions, thus way more code simplified in one entry.

So... I gotta agree with you OP. CS and SE is not a scientific discipline and more of rote monkey work. Which I felt like it was when I was training for it.

>from what I recall a Network Administrator course I flunked out of because it was a flop and cash grab for gubberment funds... its all Rote behavior, acronym to OS/part function, and running basic stuff

Except that isn't CS? As you said, that was network admin. That's like equating mechanic with mechanical engineer.

>by their reasoning putting a device in motion then setting it up to do something later that the user desires is "being an engineer"
Abstraction is not a bad thing. CS is in parts building more complex systems on top of existing systems (e.g. hardware).

What about CPU-Microcode-Programmers?

Also: Nobody forces you to attend a shitty CS-Program.

cool story, but that doesn't make you an engineer

What about someone who takes an accredited software engineering program?

there is debate about whether SE should count as engineering, but i think if you have an ABET accredited engineering BS and you work as an engineer than you can call yourself an engineer. however, you have to be working in actual SE, not some web dev bullshit or making lame iphone apps

Are you conflating web design (CSS, HTML) with web development? There's a shit-tonne of complicated high-performance software in back-end web development. Think Google, Facebook, etc. Massive scale across thousands of machines.

What about AI study?

Despite the fact that it's winter, it sure as hell feels summer in here. I need to get my sunscreen.

Professional game developer, reporting in. No degree, just natural phenotype, fags. Ride my dick.

>engineering in air quotes
Nobody wants to be an engineer.
>there is experimentation
Yes, which is a defining principle of the scientific method.
>nor inductive reasoning
Don't need that to be a science, but the entirety of complicated bug testing is inductive reasoning.
>It's not engineering as no tangible product is made
There is, but I'll leave it to a physicist or an electrical engineer to explain to you how. You think software is stored in the computer's intangible soul? Kek.

And that's why you're doing it as a hobby and not as a career making $200 an hour.

Is CS undergrad harder than engineering?

Going to start the junior level courses next semester

Yeah, javascript with fagshit.NEX.node framework is very challenging

More science then fake garbage like quantum

>he doesn't think CS involves experimentation
Someone never took Algorithm Analysis or Programming Languages.

I fucking love how computer """""""SCIENTISTS""""""" think these are challenging in any way. The most retarded physics or math undergrad could learn both of those courses in their entirety in two weeks tops

>experimentation == challenging
You must be one hell of a math student to make a leap in logic that incredulous

You're still the one doing CS lmao

>sullying superior haman-sama with your r*ccoa-tier brainlet post