Slashdot Mirror
Is Computer Science Dead?
warm sushi writes "An academic at the British Computing Society asks, Is computer science dead? Citing falling student enrollments and improved technology, British academic Neil McBride claims that off-the-shelf solutions are removing much of the demand for high-level development skills: 'As commercial software products have matured, it no longer makes sense for organizations to develop software from scratch. Accounting packages, enterprise resource packages, customer relationship management systems are the order of the day: stable, well-proven and easily available.' Is that quote laughable? Or has the software development industry stabilized to an off-the-self commodity?"
Accounting packages, enterprise resource packages, customer relationship management systems are the order of the day: stable, well-proven and easily available.
And who made those packages?
Software don't write itself.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Computer Science graduates can go one of two directions:
Academic Research - Which has grown at a steady rate
Corportate Development - Which collapsed at the end of the dot-com boom.
There is still a need for "pure" computer science research for the next big improvement in the field of computing (where is the next "Google" going to appear?)
ZombieEngineer
Over the last six years I've been increasingly worried by the falling level of ability in CS students.
I've encountered CS students recently who in their third year are unable to do such basic things as understand memory allocation. As for algorithm design? Well that's simply unknown by the majority. That scares the shit out of me.
The Mantra is 'don't re-invent the wheel'. This is used as an excuse for students taking off the shelf components for assignments (sorting classes for java being used for sorting assignments for example), or being given virtually complete assignments by lecturers and being walked slowly through the assignment to the point where little or no original thinking is required.
Now it is true that re-inventing the wheel is a bad move at times. However whilst studying for their qualification, they should learn how to build the wheel in the first place.
Back to the memory allocation point. I currently know of no final year students with a decent understanding of this topic, and yet it is the main cause of security problems in code. They should at least have a working knowledge.
The ephasis is more and more on using languages designed to try and remove the main problems in code, but who writes these languages? It sure isn't the people who are only taught to use them, not create them.
The normal course of action is to blame Java, since it has led to a simplistic approach to CS assignments. I'd love to blame it, I ferkin hate the language, but that isn't the root cause.
Computer science is a hard topic that they are trying to make simpler to encourage more students. This has the result that CS students are graduating with ever reducing levels of ability, so people no longer see it as a worthwhile topic. Nowadays a CS student who wants to do really well has to work on independent study entirely apart from the course they are attending, and has also to face the unpleasant reality that their education as provided by the university is so poor that they may face years of further study to gain a useful level of ability.
Post graduate study can reduce this problem, but there are fewer post grads too, and often it is funding, not interest in a topic, that guides the selection of a course.
From the article:Here at De Montfort I run an ICT degree, which does not assume that programming is an essential skill. The degree focuses on delivering IT services in organisations, on taking a holistic view of computing in organisations, and on holistic thinking.
ie. not Computer Science. For those not familiar with the UK education set up I should also explain that De Montfort University is the old Leicester Polytechnic. The Polys were set up to provide much more practical education than the theoretical stances of the Universities, and a damned good job many did of it too - I'm certainly not playing the one-upmanship card that some do about the old polys, Leicester Poly was a good place and its successor De Montford has reached even further.
But the point stands - this point of view is coming from an academic teaching at a more practically-oriented institution and already running a non-science based course. His viewpoint should be considered against that background.
Cheers,
Ian
This doesn't mean CS is dead.
Surely computing is much more accessible, and there is a hella lot more ready-to-go software and libraries compared to what was there 10 years ago, but this means nothing. New applications will always be needed/invented, and someone will need to code them. And even with the latest and easiest programming languages, doing things well needs some kind of education.
I am a biophysics Ph.D. student. I have never had a formal CS education nor I am a code geek (although I like to code), and just building a relatively little data analysis application with plugin support in Python is making me smash my nose against things that would make my code much better, that probably are trivial for people with a CS education (what's currying? what is a closure? how do I implement design patterns? etc.) but that for me are new and quite hard (btw: a good book about all these concepts and much more?): so I understand why CS is of fundamental importance.
-- Patent no.123456: A way to personalize
Isn't that what spreadsheets are for?
http://michaelsmith.id.au
"Neil McBride is a principal lecturer in the School of Computing, De Montfort University."
De Montfort, one of the new universities that traditionally advertises on the TV and offers vocational courses in media and the like.
Academic really doesn't mean much these days. He's not even consistent:
"Interrupts, loops, algorithms, formal methods are not on the agenda."
vs
"The complexity of embedded systems, of modern computing applications requires a different way of thinking."
I'd not like to use an embedded system he'd developed, unless by embedded he was thinking Windows Mobile + Flash.
Sorry, a rant from someone who works at a real university, and knows he isn't an academic.
jh
For that matter so is education in general. I am not a computer scientist, my education is technical instead. (LTS/MTS/HTS for the dutch)
When I attended the LTS we had real shop class, learning how to work with wood, steel, electricty with real world equipment in an area that looked much like you would expect to find in industry.
I recently had the occasion to visit a modern school that supposedly teaches the same skills, yet what I found was an ordinary classroom with a very limited and lightweight set of equipment. The kind of stuff you would find at home, NOT at work.
Yet somehow todays kids are supposed to learn the same skills.
And as if that ain't enough the number of hours of shop class have been reduced while the number of theory hours has been increased. Worse, the amount of technical theory has decreased as well and instead the amount of soft theory like history and such has taken over.
This has TWO negative impacts. First young kids coming to work can't hold basic equipment and don't understand the theory behind it and even worse the kinds of kids (like me) that used to select a techincal education because they don't like theory have that choice removed. I myself was far too restless to do a theorectical class, 18 hours of shop class per week however made the remainign theory that much easier to handle and because theory and practice were linked it all made sense.
Even worse, the modern education is supposed to make kids fit better into society, so how come they are bigger misfits then any generation before them?
No this is not old people talk. Notice even here on slashdot how the art of discussion is dying out, say anything remotely controversial and be labelled a flamebaiter or a troll by some kid who can't handle the heat. I actually had a 20 year old burst in tears about two years ago because I chewed him out for drilling through the work bench. Modern education is so much about empowerment that kids who think they are the top of the top can't handle suddenly being the lowest of the low when they enter a working life. This is already a shock simply because you just went from being the youngest in school to the oldest in school and now suddenly you are the youngest again.
Simply put, I think education in general is less and less about turning out skilled proffesionals and more and more about just keeping kids of the job market. Comp Sci ain't the only victim. Just try to get a good welder nowadays. Hell I settle for anyone who can knows the difference between a steel drill bit and a stone one. (And no, that doesn't mean one is made out of stone, rather what it is for drilling into).
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The person who wrote this article doesn't even know what CS is. CS is computer science. It will be dead when science is dead.
CS won't be dead until all the interesting questions in the theory of computing are solved : is P != NP? What can a quantum computer achieve? what are the theoretical limits to computation in the physical world, beyond Turing machines? Given the truly enormous current production in all the branches of IT from HCI to pure mathematics via signal and image processing, I would not be worried at all.
Just to rehash, CS is not about designing the best accounting package. This is ICT, not CS. CS is a means to an end.
As to ICT, I don't think the final word has been said either. Just look at the sad state of Vista, or for that matter, at just about any accounting package. Who can say with a straight face that's the best that can be done?
Recently we mourned the Webmaster, even though some of us were implicated in his murder.
That's the kind of Computer Science that is dead: the kind that Computer Science, by its progress, leaves behind.
An similar questions might be: Is evolutionary science dead? Or was that just the dinosaurs that died?
You know, I don't buy it. On one hand you have all the corporates bitching and moaning about how they don't have enough people to do the work, and how everyone should outright give citizenship to any immigrant who can use a computer. See Bill Gates's speech recently, it was linked to right here on Slashdot. Plus, they've surely created a lot of jobs in India lately. And then we have guys like this one coming out and saying "oh, we just don't need more CS people." Something doesn't add up. Either one gang is right, or the other is right, but they can't both be right at the same time.
Way I see it, reality is a lot more... perverse. Everyone still needs programmers, still needs an IT department, etc, they just don't want to pay for it.
And enrollment has just reflected this. Studying engineering or CS is hard work, and there are only a limited number of people who do it for fun. And even those can do it as a hobby at home if all else fails. For most people you have to pay well to get them to do the extra effort. If you don't pay up, they'll go do something else.
At any rate, the jobs do exist. Sure, not most of them involve researching the next great algorithm, but they exist. There are a ton of companies who need very specialized internal applications, or their own "B2B" applications, and I just don't see the off-the-shelf software who does those. Of course, most of it doesn't involve researching any new algorithms, but rather researching what the users really want. Then again, most computer-related jobs weren't exactly academic research in the past either. There were maybe more companies making compilers and new computers and what have you, but the bulk of the jobs was always in doing corporate software.
At any rate, _maybe_ if all you're seeing yourself doing after college is researching the next paradigm shift in computing, yeah, that market has somewhat shrunk. If you don't have any qualms with writing some buzzword-ladden application for some corporation, it's as strong as ever. It just doesn't pay as much as in the dot-com times any more.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
No, no, it just smells funny.
You shouldn't be intensely worried, but reading around your subject is pretty much always a smart move if you're a serious student. I learned this lesson very late in my academic career, and now wish I'd understood what the phrase really meant a couple of years earlier.
In this business, knowing multiple programming languages (and in particular, knowing multiple programming styles -- OOP, procedural, functional, etc.) is a big asset. It helps you to think about problems in more varied ways, even if you will ultimately code the solution in whatever language is required by your particular professor or, in due course, employer.
There are two suggestions I've heard in the past that I appreciate more as time goes by: try to learn a new programming language and to read a new book about programming every year. In the former case, if you're learning Java, that's OK, it's a pragmatic tool that's widely used in industry and it will teach you one way of thinking about a problem. I suggest the following as complementary languages, to be explored as and when you have the opportunity:
There are various other unique things you'll take away from each of the above, but if you spend perhaps a few months exploring each of them in some detail, it will make you a much more rounded programmer. I'd suggest either the above order, or swapping the first two around and going for a functional programming language and then something low-level. The requirements of your course or good advice from friends/teachers may guide you otherwise. Go with what works for you.
To make your learning practical, pick some simple projects, perhaps to practise whatever algorithms you happen to be studying lately in other courses, and write a few small but real programs in each language. For example, if you're learning about operating system basics, try rewriting a couple of simple OS utilities or networking tools in C or assembler. If you're learning about databases, try writing a simple web front-end for a database, and power it with a few CGI scripts written in Perl or Python that use SQL to look up and modify the data in your database. If you're learning about graphics and image processing, write a simple ray tracer in Haskell or ML.
Along the way, you'll develop potentially useful real world experience with things like OS APIs (and perhaps how they vary between platforms, and thus why standards are useful for these things), HTML/CSS and CGI for web development, SQL for database work, and so on.
As you go through this, consider buying a good textbook on major subjects (programming languages, databases design and SQL, graphics algorithms, etc.) or make sure you've identified some good reference and tutorial material on the web. The latter is a big advantage for the modern compsci student, though you have to be careful to check your sources are well-regarded and not just a pretty web site with an authoritative tone of voice written by someone very enthusiastic but regrettably ill-informed. Things like FAQs and newsgroups can be valuable sources of information, but sometimes, there's just no substitute for a well-written, well-edited, authoritative textbook.
Anyway, this post is now far too long, so I'll stop there. Please consider it "the approach I'd take if I could have my university days again" and take it for whatever it's worth to you. Good luck. :-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
This has been asked repeatedly ever since I was a wee lad [20 years ago]. The idea then was BASIC would replace comp.sci because it was so simple to program. Of course, it overlooked the fact that BASIC is wickedly inefficient. No, the answer is no. No. No. No. Why? Someone's gotta maintain the scene.
For starters, the more automated tools are not efficient enough for most computing platforms (hint: think running that nice VB.NET application in 32KB of ram). Then combine that with the need for algorithms (re: 16MHz processors) and you can see that RAD tools don't apply.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
That's why people don't do it. When I was at University in the UK (Portsmouth if anyone cares), I did Maths and Computing.
The first year consisted of learning how to format a floppy disk and write a Word document. Oh, and there was some Java thrown in there, but people found Java too hard and complained. Java then got removed from the curriculum and we did crap like theories in Artificial Intelligence instead.
We had the option of doing C++ in our final year but this largely consisted of printing out to the console and writing some text to a file. No fancy shit like Pointers or anything like that. Most people didn't elect to do this option as programming is hard work and they just stuck to Matlab instead.
Summation 2
Parent, and ABG below. It's true for just about every undergraduate field.
Undergraduate education has a few factors that drive the curriculum: one is enrollment (make it too hard, and nobody shows up; require everybody to take it, and everybody has to pass it), another is vocational preparation (what does the job market demand? or -- mixing enrollment and vocation -- what do the students think the job market demands?). The folks doing the teaching aren't really interested in either of these, and nor are the "good students".
The "vocational" side of university education has always been there, and it's always been looked down upon by the really sharp people. And, you know what? In spite of the political rhetoric you hear around the US and Europe, the students who "Hit it out of the park" career-wise, the big successes, the Googles, Netscapes, Yahoos, Nokias and so on, aren't the ones who stick to a vocational curriculum. The ones who just did what the course told them to do are the guys who end up seeing their Technical Support jobs get outsourced.
The "enrollment" issue is even more pernicious. No department wants to lose students -- since students are tied to money and power in the universities. So if a subject gets "less popular", the curriculum gets "easier" to boost retention.
University courses, like other forms of professional formation, do teach a major professional skill: that to achieve results you need to be willing to do lots of crap-work, and that a good job involves doing boring stuff much of the time.
Outside of that, the true strength of universities is that you're given some good resources to play with, and are surrounded by smart, curious, interested people. Find your passion, pursue it, and don't sweat money or jobs. Any employer you'd want to work for will recognize your abilities.
1- even if that's true, the 8-year old won't do anything revolutionary without knowing the details
2- even if he could, it would probably be just a toy, not something usable in practice
3- even if it was usable in practice, someone else with more knowledge could do something better
4- etc etc etc
Civil engineering has lost its mystique. There is no longer a need for a vast army of civil engineers. Apartments and houses that civil engineers once built laboriously in final year projects are bought at internet websites and real estate agents.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
It's hardly just CS. My major in college was studio art -- printmaking, illustration, photography, and graphic design -- and I've been a professional graphic designer for 20 years+. People just don't need the same kind of designers anymore. Advancements in technology have made most graphic design tasks really easy, really automated. I bet most people reading this post think they can "do" visual design, when in fact they simply happen to own Photoshop/GIMP and some other graphics apps and some snazzy clip art off of iStockPhoto.com. I bet you can even create fliers or web pages that don't look awful; with a good template, they might even look good. But you still don't have a true understanding of color theory, typography, layout, negative space, photo manipulation, and all the other skills that make a good, creative, original designer. But these advancements in technology have led directly to the decline of art departments around the country (and the rise of smaller, higher-quality art schools such as Parsons, School of Visual Arts, RISD, etc.
This is completely analogous to supposed "CS" majors who don't understand efficient coding, memory allocation, reusable code, storage optimization, security models, etc. And heaven forbid they try to do interface design (which is the best marriage between visual design and software development). They may be smart enough to piece together some Java or C# clips off the Internet into a program that, technically, produces the proper data output, but that's it.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
You wanna do research-level computing? You want to design and create brand new ways of computing? You want to work on AIs? Get a degree in CS.
If you want to code or do networking or project management, there are plenty of other courses out there that'll give you a much better education for that sort of job.
What happened towards the end of the dot-com boom is that people started to realize that CS wasn't exactly right for generating code monkeys, and colleges started offering different types of courses to fill these positions.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
One problem is that the computing disciplines have become intermingled and are often used interchangeably. Let me outline my definitions:
Computer Science: This is the theoretical, researchoriented discipline. It deals with developing new algorithms, optimization and that side of things.
Software Development: This is the application side of Computer Science. It takes the algorithms developed by CompSci and makes useful applications out of them.
Information Technology: This is the techie discipline. Building computers, setting up networks, administrating systems. I'm not sure why it got that name, but it seems to have.
The problem that this guy has is that he has conflated Computer Science and Software Development. And it used to be the case that they were pretty much mixed - if you wanted to program, you needed to understand all the theoretical stuff yourself. But in these days of large, freely-available libraries and modular software design, the two have become very distinct disciplines.
It's not that Computer Science is dying out; it's that it has subdivided into two separate disciplines, and of the two, there is a much greater demand for Software Developers than Computer Scientists.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Another possible reason for dropping enrollments could be disillusionment with the field as good software engineer positions are being outsourced to save money. In many ways, lots of positions become victims of globalization. Many companies use software engineers for projects or as long term temporary employees to save on the bottom line. Software engineers may be better off seeking employment at companies that develop software versus, say, a bank.
Leaving aside the issue of whether there is plenty of programming or product development work still out there (I think there is), you're absolutely right. We might as well argue that physics is dead because there are so few jobs for physicists. The supply/demand ratio for physicists is quite high. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of good science left to do. (No talking about string theory here - too volatile a topic.)
Examples of very interesting areas in computer science, besides software development, compilers, networking, programming languages, graphics, and architecture include: quantum computing, neural networks, genetic algorithms, and genetic algorithms with neural networks. (Perhaps I'm wee bit biased here.) I guess to be fair I should also mention the tremendous growth in bioinformatics.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"I think it's more like:
Mechanical Engineers and Mechanics
or
Electrical engineers and Electricians"
That's what it _is_ like, but it should really be like:
Physicists and Mechanical Engineers.
Physicists and Electricians.
Computer Science should be about the _science_ of computing, not the design and programming needs of the commercial software industry. If you want to get a job designing roads or mass irrigation systems, you don't spend your entire time at university studying physics or mathematics just because both are involved in becoming a civil engineer, so expecting a computer science course to turn out software engineers makes no more sense than expecting biology graduates to be vets or medical doctors.
What's killing computer science as a curriculum (rather than a field, where it's still alive) is therefore the fact that too many universities have allowed the distinction between science and engineering to become so blurred that it's ended up being something that students, potential employers, and lecturers have become disillusioned with because they all have different definitions of what it should be. The only way to alleviate this would be having three distinct computing degree courses:
1) Computer Science. A purely theoretical and heavily mathematical course that covers all aspects of general computing for those who want a career in research or academia that aims to produce people like Doug Englebart, Alan Kay, Edmund Djikstra, and Niklaus Wirth.
2) Computer Systems Engineering. Geared towards what used to be called "Systems Analysts", i.e. people who know how to define requirements, and then convert them into a working system of arbitrary complexity (i.e. from small office to world-spanning mega-corporation) that _does what the customer wants_.
3) Software Engineering. Both the theoretical and practical aspects of designing _and implementing_ software for everything from small embedded systems to vast n-tier multi-user set-ups, hugely parallel systems, etc. Also includes a module on human-computer interfaces, i.e. writing stuff that people will actually want to use instead of doing so because they.
IMO fields like artificial intelligence and robotics would do much better in terms of both their theoretical foundation and practical results if they were removed from computer science entirely, and instead became distinct fields that would therefore be freed from the current "throw a huge binary computer at every problem that nature seems to have solved with the equivalent of a four transistor analogue circuit, and then make excuses for the fact that it's still crappier at everything than an ant" syndrome.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
I program because I love it. I've been doing it since before the Internet boom brought in all the carpetbaggers.
Some years back, before the boom, I decided that Moore's Law (and other economic forces) were going to increase the number of programmable devices exponentially for decades to come, creating an insatiable economic demand for programmers. When the iBoom arrived, I saw it as a short-term overreaction, but still a part of long term extreme ramp up in demand for programmers.
Then I started studying economics seriously and discovered the mistake in my thinking. Demand for programmers is not proportional to the amount of code running in the world. I've written code that will soon be on a billion (with a "B") devices, but it's the same code it was when it was on fewer than 100 M devices, and those of us who wrote it easily fit in one small cubicle pen.
Real demand for programmers depends on how much NEW code has to be written and HOW FAST. (And by "new" I certainly include maintenance, glue code, customization of existing packages, etc.) If the number of programmable devices explodes (as I still believe--and observe), much of it will run code written by very few people, customized a bit, tweaked and glued by a few more people for other devices, and massively replicated. And if that customization can be done slowly enough, it can be done by an arbitrarily small group of programmers. Custom code for your own personal needs and those of your business group will constitute most new code, and that will be supported by tools that do what you want with a minimum of "programming" on your part--tools like Excel.
Then the same Moore's Law and other forces that create the "everything will run software and be connected" world of the future also brings a hundred million or more new potential programmers into the developed world economy (without ever leaving their local undeveloped economies) each year to meet the demand for however much new code needs to be written each year, and the job of "programmer" is going to look more and more like various factory worker jobs (the decent ones, not the dangerous ones.)
So the professor is decrying the falling interest in Computer Science. How would enrollment look in a "Factory Science" department at his university, I wonder....
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."