No, I'm saying there is no crisis in computer science research. The literature is as healthy as it has ever been, the advancements are coming at a rapid pace, and new fields continue to open up, despite the lack of funding. For example, computer vision is hugely hot now, yet there is very little funding dedicated to it. It's because CV is an exciting field full of potential that advancements are being made rapidly.
If you believe we need to make progress, get out there and do it. Apple is trying. Are you?
""" Apple could have contributed by releasing a core Objective C runtime and libraries, but, no, nothing."""
The objc runtime is open source (objc4 in the Darwin project). The libraries are not.
Further, you did not have zeroconf or launchd before OS X came out. zeroconf, aka Bonjour, was an Apple thing. launchd is more than just a cron replacement, and is open source.
"""what does UNIX software engineering have to do with computer science?"""
My point, since you missed it, was: - Unix is the platform of choice for much of the serious CS research that takes place. - Apple provides a whole lot of software geared for CS and bioinformatics research for a company that is ostensibly producing a consumer OS.
The bottom line is, you appear not to know what you're talking about, and have made a concerted effort to misconstrue all of my points, which tells me you have an agenda that will cloud any argument that counters that agenda. Have a nice day, but I'm not going to continue beating my head against this wall.
Student enrollment in computer science is highly cyclical. The data does not suggest that the bursts of enrollment we saw in the early 80's and late 90's are or should be the norm. When there is another technology boom, there will likely be another enrollment boom in CS.
As far as what Apple has contributed, how about consumer-priced machines shipping with: Unix, stereographic display support, Apple/Genentech BLAST libraries, optimized FFT and imaging libraries, vector libraries, XGrid, zeroconf, launchd, and, yeah, sure, a Smalltalk-80 variant that can communicate with C++, C libs, several scripting languages, AppleScript, etc. Apple provides infrastructure for fields as diverse as science, engineering, and art to do their work on. This isn't marketing spiel. It's a fundamental difference in how we view the world. I believe there is immense value in making the best things you can make, and then making them widely available. What do you believe in?
Further, if you'd actually -used- the Unix of 30 years ago, or worked on a system of any scale, I don't think you'd be so down on the progress that has been made since. I've given my credentials. What are yours?
The vast majority of computer science research takes place at universities. Corporate-supported or not, that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Even the "hot" areas of computer science research at the moment (such as computer vision) are not attracting much corporate sponsorship, Microsoft included. Additionally, many of the big advances of the past few years have come from universities, not companies (in systems: distributed hash tables, PageRank, Software Transactional Memory, etc).
Personally, I think Apple is better off doing what it does well, which is making a great platform for others to do their work on. If Microsoft had done that, rather than investing so heavily in research, I dare say they would have done a lot more good for the world than what they've otherwise accomplished.
As someone who worked on OS X for several years at Apple, I've got to say that your view is a bit skewed.
While it's true that Apple does a lot less pure research than it did in the 90's, it does a whole lot more of shipping innovative technology (touch screen interfaces, iPod, etc), which is ultimately more beneficial to customers.
Additionally, much of the Not Invented Here syndrome has been purged from the company, which allows them to take good ideas from elsewhere (dtrace, OpenGL, ZFS, khtml, etc) and focus on making really cool stuff with them, rather than reinventing wheels that have been invented well enough already.
As for outsourcing, where did you get that idea? Manufacturing, sure. Consulting work on things Apple doesn't do well (chip design, headsets, drivers, etc). But most of the core stuff (hardware engineering, almost all the software, etc) is still done at Apple.
Apple has a lot more dexterity than it used to, but still does a whole lot of engineering. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
I have a BA in computer science from Pomona College, worked at Apple for 5 years after graduating, and am now starting a startup. I've certainly never regretted going to Pomona rather than, say, UC Berkeley.
Pomona College had a CS program much in line with what you describe:
- heavily theory based
- small (my CS class was 15, which was the biggest ever)
- computer science was part of the math department
Many of the best students from Pomona (and Harvey Mudd, which shares CS resources) went on to get PhD's in CS. Many others got MS degrees. Obviously, they tended to go to technical schools for those. The heavy emphasis on theory, as opposed to the more industry-oriented courses at technical schools, prepared these students especially well for graduate studies.
From my class of 15, I can think off the top of my head of people who are now: two PhD CS students (Brown and UW), two doctors, one Google employee/Stanford MS, one Apple employee, one ex-Apple employee/entrepreneur (me), a financial analyst/MBA student at MIT, a mechanical engineering MEng student, a successful software entrepreneur (http://www.nevercenter.com/), a Darden MBA, a Disney/ESRI employee, etc.
So, a CS degree from a liberal arts college is not necessarily a one-way ticket to the unemployment line.
Personally, the reasons I chose to go to a liberal arts college rather than a bigger school were:
- I wanted to go to a smaller school.
- Small class sizes.
- Better students/professor ratios than at big schools (no TA's teaching classes).
- A decent selection of CS courses (check out the CS course listings on the web or by getting a course catalog... do they seem interesting? Overwhelming? Good!)
- I could switch majors if I decided I didn't like CS (big schools often have impacted majors... switching can be a royal pain).
- Residential campus. Living off campus was not very appealing, as it can be quite isolating.
- Liberal arts colleges tend to devote more resources to teaching their students, especially undergraduates, compared to larger schools.
- Liberal arts colleges tend to devote more effort towards setting students up for a lifetime of learning. The best thing I got out of college was learning to learn things quickly and well.
Also, as an aside, most computer science programs don't produce graduates who are going to immediately be productive in serious engineering work. You will likely need to supplement your reading in one subject area or another (FWIW, I've made a list of CS texts you should read, that may be helpful here).
Anyway, just remember that how much you like the school is extremely important. You'll be spending a lot of time there.:)
Slashdot Mirror
No, I'm saying there is no crisis in computer science research. The literature is as healthy as it has ever been, the advancements are coming at a rapid pace, and new fields continue to open up, despite the lack of funding. For example, computer vision is hugely hot now, yet there is very little funding dedicated to it. It's because CV is an exciting field full of potential that advancements are being made rapidly.
If you believe we need to make progress, get out there and do it. Apple is trying. Are you?
""" Apple could have contributed by releasing a core Objective C runtime and libraries, but, no, nothing."""
The objc runtime is open source (objc4 in the Darwin project). The libraries are not.
Further, you did not have zeroconf or launchd before OS X came out. zeroconf, aka Bonjour, was an Apple thing. launchd is more than just a cron replacement, and is open source.
"""what does UNIX software engineering have to do with computer science?"""
My point, since you missed it, was:
- Unix is the platform of choice for much of the serious CS research that takes place.
- Apple provides a whole lot of software geared for CS and bioinformatics research for a company that is ostensibly producing a consumer OS.
The bottom line is, you appear not to know what you're talking about, and have made a concerted effort to misconstrue all of my points, which tells me you have an agenda that will cloud any argument that counters that agenda. Have a nice day, but I'm not going to continue beating my head against this wall.
Student enrollment in computer science is highly cyclical. The data does not suggest that the bursts of enrollment we saw in the early 80's and late 90's are or should be the norm. When there is another technology boom, there will likely be another enrollment boom in CS.
As far as what Apple has contributed, how about consumer-priced machines shipping with: Unix, stereographic display support, Apple/Genentech BLAST libraries, optimized FFT and imaging libraries, vector libraries, XGrid, zeroconf, launchd, and, yeah, sure, a Smalltalk-80 variant that can communicate with C++, C libs, several scripting languages, AppleScript, etc. Apple provides infrastructure for fields as diverse as science, engineering, and art to do their work on. This isn't marketing spiel. It's a fundamental difference in how we view the world. I believe there is immense value in making the best things you can make, and then making them widely available. What do you believe in?
Further, if you'd actually -used- the Unix of 30 years ago, or worked on a system of any scale, I don't think you'd be so down on the progress that has been made since. I've given my credentials. What are yours?
The vast majority of computer science research takes place at universities. Corporate-supported or not, that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future. Even the "hot" areas of computer science research at the moment (such as computer vision) are not attracting much corporate sponsorship, Microsoft included. Additionally, many of the big advances of the past few years have come from universities, not companies (in systems: distributed hash tables, PageRank, Software Transactional Memory, etc).
Personally, I think Apple is better off doing what it does well, which is making a great platform for others to do their work on. If Microsoft had done that, rather than investing so heavily in research, I dare say they would have done a lot more good for the world than what they've otherwise accomplished.
As someone who worked on OS X for several years at Apple, I've got to say that your view is a bit skewed.
While it's true that Apple does a lot less pure research than it did in the 90's, it does a whole lot more of shipping innovative technology (touch screen interfaces, iPod, etc), which is ultimately more beneficial to customers.
Additionally, much of the Not Invented Here syndrome has been purged from the company, which allows them to take good ideas from elsewhere (dtrace, OpenGL, ZFS, khtml, etc) and focus on making really cool stuff with them, rather than reinventing wheels that have been invented well enough already.
As for outsourcing, where did you get that idea? Manufacturing, sure. Consulting work on things Apple doesn't do well (chip design, headsets, drivers, etc). But most of the core stuff (hardware engineering, almost all the software, etc) is still done at Apple.
Apple has a lot more dexterity than it used to, but still does a whole lot of engineering. I don't see how that's a bad thing.
I have a BA in computer science from Pomona College, worked at Apple for 5 years after graduating, and am now starting a startup. I've certainly never regretted going to Pomona rather than, say, UC Berkeley.
Pomona College had a CS program much in line with what you describe:
Many of the best students from Pomona (and Harvey Mudd, which shares CS resources) went on to get PhD's in CS. Many others got MS degrees. Obviously, they tended to go to technical schools for those. The heavy emphasis on theory, as opposed to the more industry-oriented courses at technical schools, prepared these students especially well for graduate studies.
From my class of 15, I can think off the top of my head of people who are now: two PhD CS students (Brown and UW), two doctors, one Google employee/Stanford MS, one Apple employee, one ex-Apple employee/entrepreneur (me), a financial analyst/MBA student at MIT, a mechanical engineering MEng student, a successful software entrepreneur (http://www.nevercenter.com/), a Darden MBA, a Disney/ESRI employee, etc.
So, a CS degree from a liberal arts college is not necessarily a one-way ticket to the unemployment line.
Personally, the reasons I chose to go to a liberal arts college rather than a bigger school were:
Also, as an aside, most computer science programs don't produce graduates who are going to immediately be productive in serious engineering work. You will likely need to supplement your reading in one subject area or another (FWIW, I've made a list of CS texts you should read, that may be helpful here).
Anyway, just remember that how much you like the school is extremely important. You'll be spending a lot of time there. :)