Beverly Guillermo wrote:
>
> Computer Science, in my point of view, is supposed to be theoretical
> aspects of computing. All practical applications is left to the IS majors
> and everyone else. =)
>
> I actually like looking at the theories. I've got ideas on how to improve
> things that aren't in development yet.
not to open up another can of worms, but what would you consider
developing a new OS to be -- MIS or CS? I'm not talking re-engineering
the Unix kernel (<grin>), I mean designing a new OS architechture from
scratch -- sort of like the folks at Bell tried to do with Plan 9.
I've always thought some of the problems with CS was
theory-without-application. Granted, I've no interested in writing YADB
(Yet Another Database), but at some point CS people should be putting
"pen to paper", so to speak. Consider that the two greatest contributors
to the field of computing as a whole (in my not so humble opinion) were
bastions of industry -- Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. How theoretical do you
mean?
IMHO, if you don't touch on practical issues at least 50% of the time,
what you're doing isn't CS, it's math (eg: Edsger Djikstra. grr.)
Agree totally on the theory stuff, but it's interesting to see how
different people define "Computer Science"
---
Susannah D. Rosenberg / [EMAIL PROTECTED] / gravity.dyn.dhs.org
_______________________________________________
issues mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/issues
