Slashdot Mirror
Forget Math to Become a Great Computer Scientist?
Coryoth writes "A new book is trying to claim that computer science is better off without maths. The author claims that early computing pioneers such as Von Neumann and Alan Turing imposed their pure mathematics background on the field, and that this has hobbled computer science ever since. He rejects the idea of algorithms as a good way to think about software. Can you really do computer science well without mathematics? And would you want to?"
Correction, make that minus one.
Who needs math? Bogosort is a good a sort algorithm as any. Hey, without math, how would you be able to tell?
Maths IS needed for computer science. Just be sure not to confuse Computer Science with Software Engineering. Software engineering is only a part of the computer science sphere.
Do the lessons of VB6 teach us nothing?
COMPUTING IS HARD. You can't dumb it down just because it would be nice to do so. And I'm sorry but mathematics is just the way in which meaning is expressed for machines. There's no free lunch here. And he's wrong about algorithms too - since a non-terminating algorithm is always expressible by deconstruction into a series of terminating algorithms.
Taking CS without math is like taking engineering without any physics.
WTF is the the author smoking?.. There are of course parts of CS that are less involved in math, but it is still overall a fundamental part.
- These characters were randomly selected.
Without mathematics, there is no internet porn.
Good luck on doing a kernel, file system, network stack, crypto, image processing, window manager, animation or 3D without math or algorithms. I look forward to reviewing some of this guys code.
This is all fine.. But it doesn't explain something I have long thrived to understand :
What is computer science ?
Computer engineering.. yeah.. I can understand that.. But man.. Computer SCIENCE ?
That's like saying 'car science', 'cooking science' or 'go at the bar and have a drink science' !
--Ivan
I attained a Computer Science BS in 1986. At the time everyone was getting Math minors. I opted for a communication minor instead. I've worked in high-tech engineering environments with real-time programming for many years. What I found is that I've never needed the intense mathematics attained by those with math minors. I needed to be able to implement equations that staff mathmaticians would develop. Though math is a fundamental of computer science, I believe the ability to logically assess a situation from multiple perspectives; communicate your approach with the customer; and then implement a maintainable solution is the key components required for computer scientists.
This guy just doesn't seem to understand what math is. Substituting theory of computation with his "theory of expressions" just shifts focus on another field of math.
Mainly, he claims to want to create a "comprehensive theory of process expression". Fair enough, but as soon as you want to extract usable, reliable results from your "comprehensive theory", you've really just created a branch of mathematics. Maths is not just numbers and calculus, but any systematic treatment of relations in a symbolic fashion - unless he plans a lot of fairly useless hand waving, "Oh, my process is expressed as *insert long winded ambiguous English description", he will be working within the remit of mathematics. Heck, one of my areas of study is the development of processes (studied through the use of process calculi) - a highly mathematical tool.
He also ignores the vast array of work on non-deterministic algorithms, stating that "Any program utilising random input to carry out its process, such...is not an algorithm". Sure, it's not a deterministic algorithm, but even if you artificially restrict your definition of algorithm to just be deterministic, it's a useful tool in analysing such problems.
Finally, statements such as "Computer science does not need a theory of computation" are just so bizarre as to be funny. I suggest he forgets all he knows about formal computational theory, and I'll contract "Theseus Research" to write me a program to determine the halting problem for an arbitrary program. I wonder what his bid will be, given that he doesn't need a theory of computation (that would tell him you can't do it, at least with our models of computation - and probably with any).
Now, all of this is not to say you can't make progress in computer science without the mathematics that's currently been developed - however, you will either spend a lot of time achieving unreliable results, be reinventing the wheel, or just be creating a new branch of mathematics.
....Abstraction.
And computer science, the software side, is really the science of abstraction physics.
http://threeseas.net/abstraction_physics.html
At some point in the higher levels of abstraction creation and use you use the lower mathematical level as more or less a carrier wave of the higher level abstraction, than for the purpose of performing a mathematical calculation. The analogy is that of using radio waves to carry the music you hear over the radio, but the carrier wave is discardedafter it has done it job. Likewise, the mathematics of computers boils down to binary flipping of transistor swiches upon which the higher level of mathematics is carried upon.
With a correct approach to the abstraction manipulation machine computers really are, we can accomplish a lot more, similar to the difference between using the limitation of roman numerals in math vs. the decimal system with its zero place holder.
This is something I've thought a lot about. There have been any number of times that math has helped me in my software development efforts. Things like trig to predict the path of a moving target in Robowars (back when I was in high school) to various vector and angle related maths in CustomTF for Quake 1 (www.customtf.com) to partial derivatives to calculate the slope on a surface. I've also needed math for various economics related things over the years, and probability and statistics have also been exceptionally useful to me. Currently I'm having to decipher a guy's code which is all eigenmath, so my linear algebra course is saving me from having to hire someone just to explain all the math to me.
But the kicker is that you can't just tell a student that they should "study vector math" because one day they'll write a Quake Mod, because, truth be told, they probably won't. It's the trouble with all examples you give when students ask how math will be useful -- I could pull any number of examples from my life, but the problem is, they probably won't happen in a student's life. Instead, they'll have their own trials. The best you can tell someone is to study all the math they can, because some day it *might* be useful, and they'll want to have that tool in their toolkit.
And that's just not a very satisfying answer to students who want to make sure that they'll be damn well using what you're teaching in the future.
But believe me, I thought I'd never have an application for eigenvectors, and now not only do I have to clean out my brain on the topic, but I have to parse someone else's code (PhD thesis code no less) and add functionality to it. Two other friends of mine got stuck on legacy Fortran apps which are essentially mathematical solvers (one for differential equations, the other for huge linear algebra problems), and both of them are extremely happy they paid attention in their respective math classes.
So, yeah. To CSE students out there: take math. Pay attention. It could very well save your neck some day at a job, and if it doesn't, at least try to make it interesting to yourself to think of applications where you might use them. All math through the first two years in college can find applications for it quite easily.
I sometimes run into great algorithm programmers who were poor at math, but they're rare, and usually can be explained away based on what kind of drugs they did in college. For a good algorithms guy, I love hiring good mathematicians and physicists. You can train them into great programmers a lot quicker than the other way around. However, algorithms are really a very small part of the programming space we work in. I choose to work in this space because it suits me, but most programmers never need calculus. To build a tree-based data structure and a GUI to drive it takes about an 8th grade level of knowledge. Doing a GUI really well takes creativity I've never had (apparently a lot of guys like me work at M$. I don't know where Apple finds it's GUI guys).
The summary of the author's points in the article make the book sound dead wrong on several counts, though it could just be the review. Procedural languages are the natural way to code most programs, and here's why: we've been recording recipes as a sequence of steps, with if statements and loops, since the invention of writing. It's become encoded in our genes. That's really all that early computer scientists put in our early languages like FORTRAN. It's all the stuff we've added since then that's up for debate, in my mind. The author makes money by pushing the boundaries of computing model research. I get big programs written by teams by restricting what language features are used, and how. I'd be interesting to debate the ideas, point by point.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Algorithms exist whether you think about them or not, but if you don't think about them, you'll accidentally create terrible ones.
Just as few telescope makers are astrophysicists, most programmers aren't computer scientists. The author himself is evidently not one. Instead, he is one of the more vocal members of an angry, ignorant mob trying to burn down the edifice of computer science. Its members do not understand it, so they fear it and try to destroy it --- look what's happened to computer science at universities!
It was bad enough when courses about a programming language replaced ones about algorithms and data structures (I'm looking at you, Java and D-flat). It was bad enough when pure profit became the raison d'etre of computer science departments. It was bad enough when I noticed my peers start to joke about how they didn't care about this "maths bullshit" and just wanted to earn more money. It was bad enough when the object, not the bit, became the fundamental unit of information.
But what this author advocates is still worse. He's proposing that we replace the study of computer science with a vocational programming, and call that emaciated husk "computer science." We already have a "theory of process expression", and that's the rigorous of algorithms and data structures. We've constructed that over the past 50-odd years, and it's served us quite well.
That field has given us not only staples, like A* pathfinding, but a whole vocabulary with which we can talk about algorithms -- how do you say that a scheduler is O(log N) the number of processes except to, well, say it's O(log N)? You can't talk about computer science without talking about algorithms.
The author's fearful denunciation of algorithms is only one manifestation of the anti-intellectualism that's sweeping computer science. "We don't need to understand the underpinnings of how things work", the angry mob chants, "but only implement the right interfaces and everything will happen automatically."
The members of this angry mob sometimes manage to cobble something of a program together, but it's more like a huge rock pile than a colonnade. It often barely works, uses too much memory, doesn't handle corner cases, and is likely to crash. (See worsethanfailure.com.) Members of this mob even think that if the same algorithm is expressed in two different languages, it's two different processes. People like this ask painful questions like, "i know quicksort in C# but can someone teach it to me in PHP?"
Argh.
Even "new" developments in programming are just new claptraps for old ideas, with fashions that come and go over the years. The only really new things are algorithms, and increasingly, we're calling people who couldn't independently create bubble sort "computer scientists." It's ridiculous. Call computer science what it is, and create a separate label and department for people who can program, but not discover new things.
It's this idea that one doesn't need to understand or think to be successful that's at the center of the article, and it's not just affecting computer science. Look around you. I wonder whether we'll fall into an old science fiction cliché and regress so far that we are unable to understand or recreate the technology of our ancestors.
I believe the author's point isn't that you don't need to know any mathematics, or that it doesn't have an important role to play in CS. He's simply arguing that some of the main issues in computer science are not fundamentally mathematical problems (even if they require some mathematics).
If you buy that argument, then treating CS as if it were merely simply another branch of mathematics will not help solve those problems.
Of course, this also takes us into the perennial debate between where to draw the line between "computer science" and "software engineering". One could certainly define away the author's problem by saying that his examples are software engineering issues rather than computer science issues. And it's true that it's software engineering has been driving a lot of the theory with respect to expressiveness (design patterns and the like). But that view also seems to really impoverish computer science - if all you leave the field of computer science is the stereotypical mathematics, why not just become an applied mathematics major?
Let me make this clear: your ability to write code in no way makes you a computer scientist. It's like saying that the ability to operate a forklift makes you a structural engineer. Stop it already.
That said, I'm sure you're good at what you do. I bet you can write good code in VB, as well as many other languages. This isn't a personal insult. VB, PHP, and other brutish languages are equally bad in my eyes.
These languages are brutish because they oversimplify key concepts. That oversimplification also makes them attractive to new programmers, and new programmers universally write terrible code. The languages themselves aren't bad, the coders are. That said, more experienced coders will generally choose more capable languages, so most of the time, a program written in a brutish language will be a bad one.
We need fewer programmers, not more. Maybe professional certification would help somewhat.
(Incidentally, we were lucky that Javascript became the de-facto client-side web language. We could have done far, far worse, and although we can change server languages, we can't change a user's web browser!)
"Doing a GUI really well takes creativity I've never had (apparently a lot of guys like me work at M$. I don't know where Apple finds it's GUI guys)."
Maybe the question should rather be: Why doesn't Microsoft look for the kind of GUI-guys Apple hires. And the answer to that might well be found at the top of each company. A quote from Steve Jobs' Commencement address at Stanford (June 12, 2005):
"Because I had dropped out [of college] and didn't have to take the normal classes, I decided to take a calligraphy class [...]. It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can't capture, and I found it fascinating. None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, its likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do."
Read the whole thing, it's quite interesting (if not to say: inspiring).
sig? Oh, that sig...
You were off by 19787949 - 1 = 19787948 in your calculation.
However aren't they all integers, and therefore morally equivalent?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
A lot of the criticism of this guy seems to be knee-jerk defensiveness. Read his papers on 'NULL Convention Logic' and its applicability to asynchronous circuit design and you will see where he is coming from.
The author really sucks at math but heard that there's big bucks in the computer stuff, right?
Computers are (by their very definition as well as by the word used to describe them) mathematical machines. A computer can essentially do NOTHING BUT calculate. It can in its core add, subtract, shift and move data around. How is this supposed to work without math?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I am a DSP programmer, which basically means that all the stuff I code are mathematical formulas transformed into C code. I mention DSP because writing DSP algorithms forces the programmer to know his math really well... enough so that he can distill the complex math into an efficient C code implementation.
I remember trying to get my specific algorithm to run under 500 micro seconds and the best I could get was like 10000 micro seconds. My coworker who looked at the underlying math equations for my code easily saw a better solution just by looking at the math equations for 5 minutes. After I changed my code to suit the new math equation I got my code to run at 280 micro seconds.
The whole point of this example:
When you approach the solution from a mathematical viewpoint, the mathematical viewpoint lets you see more clearly how to optimize an algorithm. In my case, I got lost looking at the C code and missed the elegant mathematical solution because I did not look at the math equations. So I ended up not being able to "distill the complex math into an efficient C code implementation" to find the elegant solution.
In my case the elegant-math-derived-solution was about 35 times faster (10000 / 280) than the original solution I had come up with.
-----
Bottom line: The syntax and complex notations used for math equations lets you look at a problem from a much higher level of abstraction and this higher level of abstraction is much more conducive to seeing the elegant best solution (solutions that improve your algorithm by an orders of magnitude rather than solutions that improve your algorithm by some linear constant).
p.s. if you were wondering what I was working on --> the function was a GMSK modulator ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMSK ) for a transmitter.
Actually, "Informatics" (which is, as you say, an incorrect term in English) is used in other languages to label "Computer Science". In Dutch it is "Informatica", in German it is "Informatik" and in French is "Informatique" (sorry, I now am at the boundaries of my own language skills). All there translate to "Computer Science".
I have to admit that I prefer the English term, because it says much more than the Dutch, French and German terms. Fact is: "Informatics" is the same thing as "Computer Science".
Go to wikipedia, search for "Computer Science" and see what the languages I mention translate to. (Try "Nederlands", "Français" and "Deutsch" in the left hand column.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
Bewcause it doesn't say anything at all like he's claiming it says.
It was garden variety executive directed securities fraud. Not errors created by poor VB scripts in Excel.
VI. MISAPPLICATIONS OF GAAP, WEAK INTERNAL CONTROLS, AND
IMPROPER EARNINGS MANAGEMENT
As noted in previous chapters of this report, the extreme predictability of the financial results reported by Fannie Mae from 1998 through 2003 was an illusion deliberately and systematically created by senior management. This chapter provides specific examples how senior executives exploited the weaknesses of the Enterprise's accounting to accomplish improper earnings management and misapply Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), and how they used a variety of transactions and accounting manipulations to fine-tune the Enterprise's annual earnings results. Those actions aimed to perpetuate management's reputation for achieving smooth and predictable double-digit growth in earnings per share and for keeping Fannie Mae's risk low, while assuring maximum funding of the pool from which senior management would receive bonus payments under the Enterprise's Annual Incentive Plan as well as maximum payments under other, longer-term executive compensation plans.
To provide context for the technical material that follows, the chapter first expands on several issues raised in the previous chapters by elaborating on the concept of improper earnings management and describing the circumstances that demonstrate that Fannie Mae senior management must have been aware of the evolving official concerns about such practices.
Following those discussions, the chapter reviews the improper accounting policies and control weaknesses that created opportunities for inappropriate manipulation of earnings at the Enterprise. The chapter then describes inappropriate accounting undertaken to avoid recording other-than-temporary impairment losses to avoid earnings volatility. The chapter concludes with discussions of several additional techniques used by senior management to fine-tune reported earnings results.
The actions and inactions of Fannie Mae senior management described in this chapter constituted unsafe and unsound practices that involved failures to comply with a number of statutory and other requirements. Several independent authorities, for example, require the Enterprise to verify and submit financial information. The Fannie Mae Charter Act--the statute that created the Enterprise--specifically requires that quarterly and annual reports of financial conditions and operations be prepared in accordance with GAAP.1 The Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, OFHEO's organic statute, requires Fannie Mae to provide OFHEO with reports on its financial condition and operations.
Similarly, regulations promulgated by OFHEO under that statute require the Enterprise to prepare and submit financial and other disclosures that include supporting financial information and certifications, on matters such as its financial condition, the results of its operations, business developments, and management's expectations.
Moreover, in accordance with applicable safety and soundness authorities, Fannie Mae should have had an effective system of internal controls in place under which:
policies and procedures would be sufficient to assure that the organizational structure of the Enterprise and the assignment of responsibilities within that structure would provide clear accountability;
policies and procedures would be adequate to manage and safeguard assets, and assure compliance with applicable law and regulation;4
policies and procedures would assure reports and documents would be generated that are timely, complete, and sufficient for directors and management to make informed decisions by providing relevant information with an appropriate level of detail; and
policies and procedures for managing changes in risk would be sufficient to permit the prudent management of balance sh
I really don't care what you do with Computer Science. There is a lot of research that requires math, as others have pointed out. And a lot of it is really valuable. Equally there is a lot of research bundled under "computer science" (because it uses computers I guess) that requires no math. Whatever.
What I'd like is an arts program that concentrates on programming. I'd like something that stresses *reading* and *writing*. I want people to learn how to *communicate* in these programming languages; not just with the computer, but also with their fellow programmers. I'd like people to do research in language design where they ask the question, "How can I allow the programmer to be more expressive about their intent?" I'd like classes on collaborative design. I could go on forever.
I was at the art gallery the other day and wandered into the modern art section. They had a display of a particular type of performance art where someone would write out a description of an artwork on 3x5 index cards. A bunch of other artists would take the description and make the art. Along with the index cards and pictures of the finished work, there were a couple of letters. The letters were describing the disappointment the original artists had in the finished work. They even went so far as to accuse the artists following the instructions as being "incompetent".
I described this to a programmer colleague of mine. His response was, "Wow... I didn't know I was a performance artist". I can count the number of times in the last 20 years that I've had to do hard math in my job as a programmer on my fingers. But questions like, "How the hell did you think *that* was readable", "How can I turn a bunch of requirements into something that isn't crap", "How do I get 10 guys working on a project and have a single vision", etc, etc, etc; those questions I ask every day.
Sure computer science is important and personally I think math is a part of that. But, someday I hope someone will realize that programming is an *artistic* endeavor and we need to do a crap load of research in that area.
It's lucky Jobs went to his calligraphy classes; if he hadn't we'd all still be using monochrome terminals. (A pretty arrogant thing to imply)
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
What you have written is 100% nonsense and puts you in exactly the same crank camp as Fant. It is always interesting to hear people that don't understand computer science describe what is wrong with it. The model of interaction that you (and he) describe is normally called Reactive software, and it is true to say that it cannot be modelled by a Turing Machine as it performs interaction continuously rather than at the beginning and end of the computation.
From here you've both made a giant leap to assume that programs can't be described by an algorithm. You haven't understood that the difference between a "computation" and "reactive software" is actually a technical triviality that is easily overcome. Indeed it is so trivial that most languages simply ignore it and have stateful operations for input/output. Reactive programs are normally modelled as a sequence of algorithmic steps, everything that the program does apart from sending / receiving data is modelled by an algorithm. So we can either consider this "non-algorithm" to be a sequence of algorithms or consider the program as an algorithm operating over a larger state that includes the environment. The input/output actions become alrgorithmic state transitions over the program/environment state. Look at the way programs in CSP/CCS or other process algebra are written to how this works. To see how the theory of algorithms can be applied to reactive systems take a look at multi-headed Turing Machines.
Finally, if you're going to lob a technical term into a discussion then you should understand what it means. Automaton is a well defined term in CS, and it doesn't mean what you think. In particular what you are describing is not a decision problem and so there is not a problem of language recognition to be solved. I vaguely remembering reading the crank research that you are pointing before, and would like to ask you a simple question. Name one problem that you believe can be computed by a UBM, but not by a UTM?
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
"The notion of the algorithm," he concludes "simply does not provide conceptual enlightenment for the questions that most computer scientists are concerned with."
The assertion that computer science is not math is similar to the assertion made in the book "The World is Flat" saying the world is now "flatter" than it used to be. In the case of the flat world, Friedman (the author of "The World is Flat") claims the world is flat to create a sense of shock that he can then use to get his message about globalization across. In the case of "computer science is not math" Fant here is trying first to shock as a method of capturing attention...
Most Americans use math in the singular. The Brits say maths. That is because there are multiple branches of mathematics. What we are discovering is that the tie between arithmetic and calculus and computer science is falsely reinforced. The fact is there are other branches of mathematics that are more important to computer science. There are also many new branches of mathematics that need to be developed in order to solve the new kinds of problems we are trying to solve in modern computer science.
I am really bothered by programmers who, when I interview them, say they have been writing software for years and can't remember ever having to use math.
I know they can't possibly mean that... or they don't know what math is...
I know that in several years of programming you must have at least been tempted to write an if statement or at least one loop of some kind.
The if statement uses a form of algebra called boolean algebra. It was named after George Boole who was very much a mathematician. I know that there are many programmers today who use the if statement and this form of mathematics makes up a large part of many programmer's jobs. I guess it must be falling out of fashion.
I know how to perform boolean algebraic operations on a white board and I have many times been confronted with a gigantic morass of if and else if statements and using simple truth tables and a little boolean math have reduced enormous sets of ifs down to just a few.
The new computer science needs to focus on solving problems involving processes. Processes are like algorithms in that they have a set of instructions but they are unlike algorithms in that they also have many temporal components and may exhibit parallelism, asynchronous invocations, and may not have a finite product. These are the types of problems addressed in newer mathematic disciplines that are trying to see information processes not as tied to computing machinery but as tied to the natural world.
Computer Science may point to a new kind of science that describes an underlying natural computational order of the universe. We are starting to observe computational processes everywhere, in the brains of animals, to the interactions of ecosystems, to quantum mechanics. We may lack the right mathematics to describe these things and we may have to invent new kinds of math but that doesn't mean that math becomes unimportant. An understanding of math can help when studying logic and so too would it help in studying any new disciplines that we may need to invent.
New kinds of math are invented every day to describe new kinds of problems. To say you don't need math to study any formal science let alone computer science is just silly. It is just something shocking to say that grabs attention... and the article nearly contradicts itself by the end... and it's only 7 paragraphs. The distinction Fant makes is nearly academic. Just as the distinction between a Statistician, a Geometer ( a mathematician who studies geometry ), and a Logician is academic. Yet that is not what the readers of the headline will read... Fant is arguing to make computer science a new kind of science much as Wolfram has. Yet it would be sil
[signature]
Most engineers never need calculus either, but we still take an awful lot. Why use does a geological engineer have for vector calculus? You'd be surprised where it shows up sometimes. But you need to know it to understand what's going on behind the scenes in various "standard" equations, modeling programs, etc., so you don't blindly follow what's laid down in a textbook. Most of the great engineers I know in industry and research (pretty closely connected in my industry actually) are also damn sharp at math.
Oh I see. All this time I was lead to believe that Donald Knuth created TeX to satisfy the desperate need for a half decent digital typography tool and after all it must have been due to some class that steve jobs took when he dropped out of college. Knowing that TeX remains to this day the best typesetting system and knowing a bit about Adobe and the history of PostScript, I guess that that half baked assertion makes sense and must be true.
...or maybe not.
Please. Steve Jobs doesn't walk over water, nor is he behind every single thing which can be accounted as progress in the computer world. This whole jobs-worshiping thing is starting to become ridiculous.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
is the same as writing litterature with a programming language.
The reason computer science is so heavily influenced by math is the binary architecture that every piece of hardware is designed around. Every real world problem, right down to choosing the color of a font, has to be translated into the digital world by algorithmic approximation - a lot of math! The problem is that it is this very abstraction that makes computers so "flexible" in what they can do. Analog computers existed many years ago but they could only ever be built for a single purpose.
Unfortunately(?) it is much easier to design and mass produce something which is based on a finite lowest common denominator (bits) than it is to do so based on the continuum that a non-digital solution would require.
That said, who's to say that a beautiful painting rendered in Gimp/PhotoShop isn't a program of sorts? Certainly it has input, (from the original creator), and output, (its effect on us), and the "code" can be modified to change both!
Yes, but I wrote a new book that claims that debate is better off without logic. Early debating pioneers such as Kant and Aristotle imposed their logic background on the field, and this has hobbled debate ever since. I reject the idea of convincing arguments as a good way to resolve any conflict.
Slashdotter, ID #101. UIDs are in binary, right?
Ha! I guess that's why I like to see all the variable declarations at the top of a function, and some kind of comment above that. I've also seen recipes with goto statements. I guess you could call it a spaghetti recipe? :-P
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Wow. That's probably the most non-sensical statement I've read in Slashdot in a while, including the huge iraq-related threads... Quite an accomplishment!
You probably aren't programming anything that requires math. Try 3D graphics programming - you need a lot of linear algebra, and some calculus if you're doing any kind of shading. Physics simulations require more differential equations than you can shake a stick at. Lossy compression requires frequency analysis and coordinate transforms. Of course, making business database front ends doesn't require much in the way of maths... *sigh* :/
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
... and here we find the fundamental problem. Programming != Computer Science.
More accurately, a programmer is not necessarily a computer scientist any more than a computer scientist is necessarily a programmer. Neither is better or worse than the other, and both should know something about the other's skill set, but in practice, there are many amazing programmers who are poor computer scientists, and even more great computer scientists who are poor programmers.
I would classify programmers as people who can get a computer to do what they want it to, and the measure of the skill of a programmer is how their code performs on some set of metrics (performance, reusability, readability, etc.)
On the other hand, computer scientists are people who figure out what they can get a computer to do and how to do it. More often than not, these people work in research labs and in academia, and their measure of performance is how many (usefully) novel methods they've found of doing things or how many new things they've figured out they can make computers do. In most cases, aptitude in more advanced math does help computer scientists, although in some sub-fields, there is less dependency on this.