[comp.edu] Computer Science: where it belongs

ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (10/31/87)

     Computer Science is sometimes viewed as a branch of engineering and 
sometimes as a branch of mathematics, and sometimes as a type of science.
Why not view computer science as a performing art such as painting or music 
which has two main parts:  performance ( e.g., software engineering), and 
theory ( study of the phenomena underlying software engineering - why they 
work and how they can be improved).  Perhaps Computer Science programs should
be placed within Collges of Art.  That would certainly assist with such issues
as tenure, or what a B.S. student in the discipline should know.
    For tenure, we could then have ample precedents for crediting development
of new software ( composition).

fpst@hubcap.UUCP (Steve Stevenson) (11/02/87)

in article <469@ndsuvax.UUCP>, ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) says:
> Why not view computer science as a performing art such as painting or music 
> which has two main parts:  performance ( e.g., software engineering), and 
> theory ( study of the phenomena underlying software engineering - why they 
> work and how they can be improved).  Perhaps Computer Science programs should
> be placed within Collges of Art. 

I second this view.  Just like mechanics has several disciplines which
are interested in various aspects, so too should computer science.
The study is "computing" and it covers many fields.  Why do so many
folks keep thinking about absolute control of a discipline.

Maybe y'all need a B.A. - and learn a little about philosophy of science
and some history

-- 
Steve Stevenson                            fpst@hubcap.clemson.edu
(aka D. E. Stevenson),                     fpst@clemson.csnet
Department of Computer Science,            comp.hypercube
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906 (803)656-5880.mabell

jona@clyde.UUCP (11/03/87)

In article <469@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) writes:
>
>     Computer Science is sometimes viewed as a branch of engineering and 
>sometimes as a branch of mathematics, and sometimes as a type of science.
>Why not view computer science as a performing art such as painting or music 
>which has two main parts:  performance ( e.g., software engineering), and 
>theory ( study of the phenomena underlying software engineering - why they 
>work and how they can be improved).  Perhaps Computer Science programs should
>be placed within Collges of Art.  That would certainly assist with such issues
>as tenure, or what a B.S. student in the discipline should know.
>    For tenure, we could then have ample precedents for crediting development
>of new software ( composition).


Certainly in interesting idea, by the same reasoning you could also put it
into the department of English (or maybe foreign languages) since the
ability to write readable/understandable programs is clearly important.

This holds true for many other programs too, take architecture for
example, it is art-related but often in it's own school.
For that matter I think EE would fit into the art mold.

The interesting question is: If CS can be mapped to art than what is the
CS equivalent of a person who draws "modern" art pictures (such as a
25'x30' blue background with a red and green stripe through it)?

Jon M. Allingham	(201)386-3637	AT&T Bell Laboratories (Whippany,NJ)
{ihnp4,clyde}!moss!jona			WH 1A-114

"To those of us with real understanding, dancing is the only pure art form"
-Snoopy 

dickey@ssc-vax.UUCP (Frederick J Dickey) (11/04/87)

> in article <469@ndsuvax.UUCP>, ncmagel@ndsuvax.UUCP (ken magel) says:
>> Why not view computer science as a performing art such as painting or music 
>> which has two main parts:  performance ( e.g., software engineering), and 
>> theory ( study of the phenomena underlying software engineering - why they 
>> work and how they can be improved).  Perhaps Computer Science programs should
>> be placed within Collges of Art. 

There is a serious problem with this proposal. There exist engineering firms
that in the past had certain curious hiring practices (and may still have them).
If a recent CS grad (from a school where the CS department is in the
Engineering College) applied for a job, the firm would say, "Hey! This guy is
cool, he's an engineer, let's hire him as a well-paid engineer." If a grad
from a school where the CS department is in the arts college applied for a
job, the firm would say, "Hey! This guy is not cool, he's not an engineer, let's
hire him as a poorly-paid technical aide." This is irrespective of the merits
of either the grad or the school. This is not a fairy tale, this is how it 
really happens.

paul@spock.UUCP (Paul Parry) (11/09/87)

In article <16118@clyde.ATT.COM> jona@moss.UUCP (Jon M. Allingham) writes:
>
>This holds true for many other programs too, take architecture for
>example, it is art-related but often in it's own school.
>

Maybe Computer Science should be in its own school as well.  It bears a
similarity to architecture as being in between art and science, using
both artistic creativity and scientific principles.

Now that I think about it, isn't that what engineering is?  Now we're back
where we started.

							-Paul
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
#include <std/disclaimer.h> /* The notorious rule 5b */

UUCP:		{decvax,seismo,cmc12}!yale!spock!paul
USPS:		Paul Parry
		Choate Rosemary Hall
		PO Box 788
		Wallingford, CT 06492
SNET,9x:	(203) 284-5470
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

kludge@pyr.gatech.EDU (Scott Dorsey) (11/10/87)

In article <180@spock.UUCP> paul@spock.UUCP (Paul Parry) writes:
>Maybe Computer Science should be in its own school as well.  It bears a
>similarity to architecture as being in between art and science, using
>both artistic creativity and scientific principles.
>
>Now that I think about it, isn't that what engineering is?  Now we're back
>where we started.

    Yes, this is what engineering is, but it's not what is taught at
engineering schools.  It is very hard to instill an aesthetic sense in
a person.  Engineering schools (this one included), tend to teach the
science and expect one to pick up the technique and the art automatically.
This doesn't always happen.  We graduate MSEE's who don't know how to
solder, and who wouldn't recognize a good amplifier design from a bad one.
It is hard to explain elegance; all that one can do is show lots of
examples and hope that one picks it up.
   Computer science programs for undergraduates are pretty heavy on
technique when compared with EE programs.  An attempt is made to point
out what programming style is.  This doesn't guarantee that it will
make good programmers, or good scientists, and the emphasis on programming
or science is a choice that must me made by the school.  In a similar
way, English programs can concentrate on the techniques of writing, or
on knowledge of the existing body of literature.  It should be pointed out
that knowing literature makes one a better writer, and being able to write
permits one to understand the writing of others.

S. Dorsey
(A former English major, now ICS major, who can solder)
-- 
Scott Dorsey   Kaptain_Kludge
SnailMail: ICS Programming Lab, Georgia Tech, Box 36681, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
Internet:  kludge@pyr.gatech.edu
uucp:	...!{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!gitpyr!kludge

lamaster@pioneer.arpa (Hugh LaMaster) (11/10/87)

In article <4422@pyr.gatech.EDU> kludge@pyr.UUCP (Scott Dorsey) writes:

>   Computer science programs for undergraduates are pretty heavy on
>technique when compared with EE programs.  An attempt is made to point
>out what programming style is.  This doesn't guarantee that it will
>make good programmers, or good scientists, and the emphasis on programming
>or science is a choice that must me made by the school.  In a similar

I have to agree with the previous posters who said that:

1) Computer Science and Software Engineering are not the same subject
   and deserve separate programs, and

2) Anyone who claims to be either a Scientist or an Engineer should have
   a knowledge of mathematics at least through "Advanced Calculus" (the second
   year after Freshman calculus), PLUS, whatever tools of Applied Mathematics
   are necessary for their particular discipline, e.g. Probability,
   Statistics, and Stochastic Processes, and/or Differential Equations, etc.

A Computer Science curriculum should focus on Algorithms, Languages,
Compilers, Numerical Analysis, and so on.

A Software Engineering curriculum should focus on software development,
management of large projects, software maintenance, operating systems,
networks, etc.

Programming is an integral part of either curriculum, but not the only part of
either.






  Hugh LaMaster, m/s 233-9,  UUCP {topaz,lll-crg,ucbvax}!
  NASA Ames Research Center                ames!pioneer!lamaster
  Moffett Field, CA 94035    ARPA lamaster@ames-pioneer.arpa
  Phone:  (415)694-6117      ARPA lamaster@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov

(Disclaimer: "All opinions solely the author's responsibility")

g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) (11/10/87)

Here is thought for what it's worth.  I have always felt that one of the
failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying
large existing programs.  There are two points here.

One is having a bank of pre-existing program plans to draw on.  Doesn't this
make sense?  Architects don't sit down and design bridges and buildings as
though no one had ever built a bridge or a building before.  Suppose you have
to design a system.  Wouldn't it be sensible if, for each requirement, you
could go to the design catalog and get a list of system features that would
be needed.  Wouldn't it be sensible if you had a suite of major architectures
to select from instead of designing one de novo?

The other point is that SE people should spend some time studying large
programs.  What is the principal decomposition?  It's all very well to be
able to write small programs that implement neat algorithms, but a lot of
people are going to have to work with large systems.  Shouldn't an SE graduate
have some experience in finding her way around a large system?
-- 

In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.

ccplumb@watmath.UUCP (11/11/87)

In article <21402@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>[SE's should spend more time learning from other programs.  Two points:]
>
>One is having a bank of pre-existing program plans to draw on.  Doesn't this
>make sense?  Architects don't sit down and design bridges and buildings as
>though no one had ever built a bridge or a building before.  Suppose you have
>to design a system.  Wouldn't it be sensible if, for each requirement, you
>could go to the design catalog and get a list of system features that would
>be needed.  Wouldn't it be sensible if you had a suite of major architectures
>to select from instead of designing one de novo?

Yes, it would.  But where do you get it?  Richard Stallman has flamed
many times about the needless duplication of effort engendered by the
common impossibility or illegality of using another program's source as
the basis for some product.  The GNU project should improve the
situation considerably.

>The other point is that SE people should spend some time studying large
>programs.  What is the principal decomposition?  It's all very well to be
>able to write small programs that implement neat algorithms, but a lot of
>people are going to have to work with large systems.  Shouldn't an SE graduate
>have some experience in finding her way around a large system?

Again, most large systems are developed by people who wish to make
money licencing their use.  They would tend to object to having several
hundred SE students per year investigate the innards of their
proprietary code.

There are, of course, notable exceptions.  GNU Emacs, the netnews
software, TeX, and X-windows come to mind.  Testing several hundred
bug-ridden modified versions of the news handling software would
require the investment of considerable effort in the construction of a
realistic playpen if live testing, and the resultant chaos, is to be
avoided.

The others, however, would work nicely.  The only problem would be
providing the resources to handle a copy of the sources per student,
and many, many compiles per student.

Of course, one could aim a little lower with Mush or MH, or Nethack
(sure to receive extremely thorough testing).  If anyone has a course
based on something similar to this, I'm sure the net would be interested.
--
	-Colin (watmath!ccplumb)

Take *everything* with a grain of salt dept.:
"America could gain much from Russia's long experience with Mars."
	- The Economist, Oct. 3.

reggie@pdnbah.UUCP (George Leach) (11/11/87)

In article <180@spock.UUCP> paul@spock.UUCP (Paul Parry) writes:

>Maybe Computer Science should be in its own school as well.  It bears a
>similarity to architecture as being in between art and science, using
>both artistic creativity and scientific principles.

     Perhaps my perceptions from my undergraduate days are a bit clouded
by the fact that the CS department  was in the Engineering School, while
the Architecture School was a seperate entity.  I was always under the
impression that architecture was purely a design function, while civil
engineering dealt with structure, materials, etc......  In other words,
architecture was the art and engineering was the science.


George W. Leach					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!reggie	Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  34649-2826

lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) (11/11/87)

>>   Computer science programs for undergraduates are pretty heavy on
>>technique when compared with EE programs.  An attempt is made to point

> 2) Anyone who claims to be either a Scientist or an Engineer should have
>    a knowledge of mathematics at least through "Advanced Calculus" (the second
>    year after Freshman calculus), PLUS, whatever tools of Applied Mathematics
>    are necessary for their particular discipline, e.g. Probability,
>    Statistics, and Stochastic Processes, and/or Differential Equations, etc.

This is quite true. When I went thorugh my EE program, the math required
was 4 terms of basic calculus (we were on trimesters), 1 term of basic
differential equations, and then 1 term of something else, usually
basic linear algebra or intro to statistics. This was quite a joke of 
mathematical background. I had a heavy interest in math and took several
things past this including advanced calculus, a term of algebra, and
some differentiual geometry at the graduate level. This assisted me 
greatly in my engineering classes. Sometimes, especially in
electromagnetics, I had no feel for what the problem meant physically
but I had the mathematical skills to solve the problem and get a proper
answer while the others in the class couldn't do them because of a lack
of math skills.

Any body feel like commenting on the causes of the lack of math skills
of incoming freshman? Primarily those who get to college and can't do
trig or basic analytical geometry?


-- 
j                                UUCP: ...ihnp4!msudoc!eecae!lawitzke
"And it's just a box of rain..." ARPA: lawitzke@eecae.ee.msu.edu  (35.8.8.151)

steve@hubcap.UUCP (11/12/87)

>Maybe Computer Science should be in its own school as well.

I feel this would be a catastophic error.  It would add a level of
useless bureauracy at best.  In my opinion, it would more likely
remove the feedback mechanism which is extant in engineering / sciences.
While we would all like to believe that our particular discipline
is the "only true" one, it just ain't so.

Despite the constant bickering between sciences and engineering, the
reality is that they feed problems/solutions back and forth.  The
history of technology shows us that these interactions are necessary
and there is a necessary ebb and flow from "pure" to "applied" and
back.

The first problem - one that we have not yet come to grips with -
is the definition of the various products [ there are many classes
of folks ].  If we keep saying "computer is someone who is a carbon
copy of 'me'", then we'll be in trouble as a discipline forever.

-- 
Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson           steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science,            (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906

reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (11/12/87)

In article <21402@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>Here is thought for what it's worth.  I have always felt that one of the
>failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying
>large existing programs.  There are two points here.

      Quite true!  Most CS graduates don't get such exposure until they obtain
a job in industry.  Perhaps what is needed is some kind of case study approach
like many business schools will take.  I can easily envision this taking an
entire course.

>One is having a bank of pre-existing program plans to draw on.  Doesn't this
>make sense?  Architects don't sit down and design bridges and buildings as
>though no one had ever built a bridge or a building before.  

       I don't know about that!  Have you ever seen some of the stuff that
architecture students turn in as designs :-)  BTW:  I may be wrong on this
point, but I don't believe that architects design bridges.  There just are
not many architectural issues involved.  Most designs are dictated by the
structural requirements.

>Suppose you have
>to design a system.  Wouldn't it be sensible if, for each requirement, you
>could go to the design catalog and get a list of system features that would
>be needed.  Wouldn't it be sensible if you had a suite of major architectures
>to select from instead of designing one de novo?

       One of the worst aspects of comparing software to anything else, like
building bridges or cars is that each and every bridge that has ever been
build will serve the same function.  The same is true of cars, televisions,
etc.....  Not true of software!!!  Nor will the set of possible applications
that software will serve remain static.  We are constantly throwing new 
problem domains at software.  Sure, for someone writing Yet Another Payroll
Program ( although they would probably buy it!) this approach may be quite
useful, but for many other problem domains there is litte benefit.


-- 
George W. Leach					Paradyne Corporation
{gatech,codas,ucf-cs}!usfvax2!pdn!reggie	Mail stop LF-207
Phone: (813) 530-2376				P.O. Box 2826
						Largo, FL  34649-2826

beth@hubcap.UUCP (11/12/87)

Richard Harter says:
> The other point is that SE people should spend some time studying large
> programs.  What is the principal decomposition?  It's all very well to be
> able to write small programs that implement neat algorithms, but a lot of
> people are going to have to work with large systems.  Shouldn't an SE graduate
> have some experience in finding her way around a large system?

As someone else mentioned, finding good large programs is difficult
because companies generally do not want to share.  And you'd really
want them to share not only the source code but the requirements,
designs (and any designs that were discarded along with the reasons
why they were discarded), test suites, and bugs found after delivery.
What we need are case studies of large projects.  These could be
used in many ways in a software engineering course.

The Software Engineering Institute was looking at finding and using
such case studies.  Maybe someone there could comment.  I know that
my students learned quite a bit changing other people's programs.

					Beth Katz
 ...!gatech!hubcap!beth			beth@hubcap.clemson.edu
 ...!uunet!brillig!beth			beth@brillig.umd.edu

spf@clyde.UUCP (11/13/87)

In article <1752@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdnbah.UUCP (George Leach) writes:
>In article <180@spock.UUCP> paul@spock.UUCP (Paul Parry) writes:
>
>     Perhaps my perceptions from my undergraduate days are a bit clouded
>by the fact that the CS department  was in the Engineering School, while
>the Architecture School was a seperate entity.  I was always under the
>impression that architecture was purely a design function, while civil
>engineering dealt with structure, materials, etc......  In other words,
>architecture was the art and engineering was the science.

No, when you consider that an architect is often THE responsible party
for a structure, this approach would never do.  Most architecture
programs I've looked at (maybe it'll be my NEXT career, or the one
after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering
domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural
characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with
concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design,
living space human factors, &c.  Most architecture undergrad programs
are 5 year programs (vice 4 for civil engineering), and while you
can get an MS in architectural studies in the usual 30 credits or so,
the "practitioner's" graduate degree is a Master of Architecture,
which is more like a Master of Engineering degree and requires on the
order of 50 credits beyond the Bachelors.

If there are any practicing architects listening, I'd appreciate
any corrections, as well as comments about the relationship between
architecture and engineering.

Steve "Tear it down? Hell no, RESTORE IT!" Frysinger

ccplumb@watmath.UUCP (11/13/87)

In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes:
>In article <1752@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdnbah.UUCP (George Leach) writes:
>>
>>[Perhaps I'm ignorant, but...]                  I was always under the
>>impression that architecture was purely a design function, while civil
>>engineering dealt with structure, materials, etc......  In other words,
>>architecture was the art and engineering was the science.

Note: I'm not an architect (I was told to stay away; architects don't
make any money!), but with 4 out of 5 parents (people-related-to-
biological-parents-by-marriage-at-some-time-or-another) and sundry
other family members in the field, I hope I have *some* idea of what
I'm talking about.

>No, when you consider that an architect is often THE responsible party
>for a structure, this approach would never do.

Indeed.  I know of a case where the architect got sued because the
brick supplier delivered substandard materials.  They went out of
business before the facing in question began falling apart, thus
the architect got nailed.  Imagine something wrong with the *design*.
(The architect wasn't crazy about the supplier, but this was a
government job, and had to accept the lowest bidder.)

>                                                Most architecture
>programs I've looked at (maybe it'll be my NEXT career, or the one
>after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering
>domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural
>characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with
>concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design,
>living space human factors, &c.

It is true, though, that architects never use calculus.  While they
need a feel for structural concerns, most problems are well understood
and can be solved with standard rules of thumb.  (Most of the structure
in a house is to make sure it's rigid enough - so it doesn't flex,
producing cracks in the walls - rather than to make sure it's strong
enough.  The only place structural strength comes to mind is handling
snow loads on roofs.)  For anything tricky, you call a structural
engineer - to cover your ass, if nothing else.

BTW, tasteful people *do* use concrete.  It just takes a bit of
finesse.  My current father once had a boss who told him never to use
concrete.  As soon as he had the chance (his own firm), he designed a
mostly-concrete building.  He related this story in a speech where he
also told architects in Phoenix, Arizona to stop using stucco, so it
backfired to a degree, but the building was a success.

Also, it's very hard to draw the line between human factors and
structure.  You have to put mechanical equipment where it doesn't
obstruct anyone's view and it doesn't bother anyone with the noise, as
well as worrying about routing air ducts and whatnot to it.  My parents
were once asked, in a renovation of a section of apartment, to draw
attention away from the fact that the columns were much too thick and
closely spaced.  It was an early job, and the architect had been
timid.  All that structure could have been oppressive.

Another example, it's certainly the architect's job to pick where the
windows will go, and what their configuration will be.  It's also the
architect's job to calculate sun angles and ensure that the windows
won't leak.  This isn't completely trivial - they're having problems
with the seals in the glass roof of Harbour Place in Baltimore,
Maryland.  There are simply so many things that can go wrong.

>                                 Most architecture undergrad programs
>are 5 year programs (vice 4 for civil engineering), and while you
>can get an MS in architectural studies in the usual 30 credits or so,
>the "practitioner's" graduate degree is a Master of Architecture,
>which is more like a Master of Engineering degree and requires on the
>order of 50 credits beyond the Bachelors.

Still, reports I've heard say that architecture graduates don't pay
nearly enough attention to human factors and practicality.  They're all
into grand concepts and motifs and axes for everything.  Generally,
they don't seem to care about arranging to water greenery (or even
specifying which kind of plants they want), providing service access,
working out heating systems (it's always tricky to have big windows
without cold downdraughts or condensation - generally the approach is
to place heating grilles below them, but that dries out any plants in
the window something fierce), providing the right number of electrical
outlets in the right places, or arranging for good circulation (of
people, that is).

One great example - the U.S. Vietnam memorial.  It was designed by a
first-year architecture student, and while it's good, its origins
show.  People like to touch the names they've found, and it's much too
tall to do this in the middle.  It was originally supposed to have
grass all around, but grass just can't take the traffic.  (They've now
added a walkway past the face, and a railing to keep people on the
walkway.  Horrible!  You can't step back and look at the thing.)  The
idea behind the grass was that the memorial would merge into the
landscape, but all the trees were cleared out of the area.  Also, while
I don't mind so, I've heard people who wish the stone panels bearing
the names were much thicker.  As it is, they don't feel solid enough.

It's harmless, who really *cares* that the wings of the memorial are
aligned with the Lincoln (hideously ugly) and Washington (I think)
memorials?  You have to pick some arrangement, but there's no great
need to put everything on an axis.

>If there are any practicing architects listening, I'd appreciate
>any corrections, as well as comments about the relationship between
>architecture and engineering.

Generally, an architect tells an engineer where her/his end of the
business is going to go ("this is your mechanical room"), and the
engineer makes it work.

Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, but the engineer works for
the architect, who has to be thoroughly cognizant of engineering
requirements.

>Steve "Tear it down? Hell no, RESTORE IT!" Frysinger
--
	-Colin (watmath!ccplumb)

Zippy says:
I want to dress you up as TALLULAH BANKHEAD and cover you with
 VASELINE and WHEAT THINS..

rick@svedberg.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) (11/14/87)

In article <1759@pdn.UUCP>, reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes:

> >Here is thought for what it's worth.  I have always felt that one of the
> >failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying
> >large existing programs.  There are two points here.

Quit true. One of the worst failings I have found with recent CS graduates 
it their total lack of exposure to maintenance of large systems. They have
never really seen a large system. (Such is usually found on most mainframe
systems.) They really don't seem to grasp the concepts required to maintain
this type of system as well as understanding the requirements for modifying 
software projects. They also have never really been exposed to a variety of
different software systems. This seems to be especially true of CS departments
which teach ONLY Unix. CS should try to expose graduates to a variety of
systems and styles. (Much of the time, we have to spend some months to 
teach them that UNIX does not always provide the best way of solving a system
software problem.)

>        One of the worst aspects of comparing software to anything else, like
> building bridges or cars is that each and every bridge that has ever been
> build will serve the same function.

One minor point here, bridge building (or design actually) has usually 
been a very individualistic approach. Although the function is the same,
(enable traffic to cross an obstacle), the design is VERY individual (what
type of bridge, environment of the bridge, etc.) It is similar to our problem
in that we have to provide a functional system but the exact environment
will vary. Thus bridge design is actually a fairly good analogy to software
engineering, but has several decades of development beyond Sy d

rcw@qetzal.UUCP (Robert C. White) (11/14/87)

In article <15517@watmath.waterloo.edu>, ccplumb@watmath.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) writes:

> Still, reports I've heard say that architecture graduates don't pay
> nearly enough attention to human factors and practicality.  They're all
>[...] > working out heating systems 

Right now it's a toasty 98 degrees here in my office. Maybe I'll go
sit in the corner. WHat corner? There isn't a 90 degree angle to be
had in the entire building. That would be fine if I had funky 
shaped bookcases or a triangular desk I guess. Excuse me for being
a human and wanting to use this building.

Actually, if you can believe this, I ran into the building architect
about a year ago, and I tactfully told him his building had some
design defects. He agreed with me and blamed  it on the builder!

Maybe he ought to read the _Fountainhead_ and take appropriate
action.
  
> >If there are any practicing architects listening...
  
Well, at least the "Artiste" can chuck his "practice" canvas or 
clay projects. What do you do with a multi-million dollar
building?  

MY LIST OF THE MOST QUESTIONABLE BUILDINGS IN THE US
(Followups to alt.flame - edit the newsgroup line)
1. Denver, Co - Boettcher Center for Performing Arts
   Convenient parking gives you access to a real eyesore!
   They've painted the plumbing a pale yellow and even 
   added some large "non functional" pipes. Looks like an
   elementary school. Acoustics are wretched too!

2. Hanover, NH - Bradley Mathematics Center, Dartmouth College
   Designed and built in the 1960s, this thing closely 
   resembles a shower stall, blue and white tiles and all.
   Fortunately, larger colonial style buildings do an 
   impressive job of hiding it.

3. Hanover, NH - Kiewit Computation Center
   Large concrete squatty off white building. Rumored to have 
   an ICBM control room in the basement, and at least 9 levels
   of basement for storing top secret NSA gov't stuff. Supposedly
   the entire building can submerge in the event of a nuclear
   attack. Incredibly, there is a copy of this building in 
   Carson City, Nevada (the public library). Wish it would
   submerge soon. Appropriately located right next to Bradley.

4. Springfield, Il - Lincoln's Tomb
   The atmosphere of dignity is destroyed by the lite music which is
   piped through the vaults. Hopefully this has been stopped!
   Obviously not the architects fault here. 

5. Hancock Building - Boston, Ma
   OK if you like your office windows to pop out in gusty winds.
   Hopefully this has been fixed in  the next release :-)

6. Most of the Buildings - Emory University, Atlanta Ga
   Nothing wrong with the buildings except they are totally
   inappropriate for dirt-poor college students :-). 
   Opulence must be seen to be believed.

7. State Capitol Building - Lincoln, Nebraska
   OK, so Nebraska had to be different. But a tower? c'mon.
   Fits in with a unicameral legislature I guess.

sdejarne@polyslo.UUCP (Steve DeJarnett) (11/14/87)

In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes:
>after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering
>domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural
>characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with
>concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design,
>living space human factors, &c.  Most architecture undergrad programs
>are 5 year programs
     ^
Here at Cal Poly (which certainly isn't indicative of the rest of the world), 
there are 2 architecture degrees.  One is just plain Architecture (you know,
draw the buildings, come up with great ideas, etc.).  They take 1 year of
calculus, 2 quarters of Physics, and that's about it.  The other degree is 
Architectural Engineering (still under the Architecture school, though).  They
are a 5 year program, and take all of the Strength of Materials, statics &
dynamics, structural engineering, etc. type of classes.  A friend of mine is
studying to be an architect also at Washington Univ. (St. Louis), and their 
architecture program is a 4 year also.  Therefore, not all architects are
structural engineers.

	I don't know how all of this pertains to CSc in general, but I'm sure
someone out there does :-).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Steve DeJarnett		|    ...!ihnp4!csun!polyslo!sdejarne	      |
| Computer Systems Lab		|    ...!{csustan,csun,sdsu}!polyslo!sdejarne |
| Cal Poly State Univ		|    ...!ucbvax!voder!polyslo!sdejarne	      |
| San Luis Obispo, CA  93407	|    					      |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <std_disclaimer.h>

jwb@CIVE.RI.CMU.EDU (John Baugh) (11/16/87)

In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes:
>
>No, when you consider that an architect is often THE responsible party
>for a structure, this approach would never do.  

What gives you this impression?  Certification of structural integrity
is required by a registered professional ENGINEER -- although you can
take liability if you want :-).

>						  Most architecture
>programs ... include substantial courses from the civil engineering
>domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural
>characteristics of concrete ...

You call this substantial?  I call it introductory (sophomore level) --
you'll never be able to design structures with that background, even
if someone actually let you.  The purpose of these courses in an
architectural curriculum is to improve the architect/engineer interface.

>		            ... Most architecture undergrad programs
>are 5 year programs (vice 4 for civil engineering), ...

The "who's curriculum is harder" syndrome ... pointless.

>If there are any practicing architects listening, ...

John Baugh (a once practicing, now academic, engineer)
Carnegie Mellon University

steve@hubcap.UUCP ("Steve" Stevenson) (11/16/87)

> In article <21402@cca.CCA.COM> g-rh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
>>Here is thought for what it's worth.  I have always felt that one of the
>>failings of the software field is that people don't spend much time studying
>>large existing programs.  There are two points here.

When I had the priviledge of working with John Hopfield (BTL - 1979 )
we had a long talk about "computer science" and the other sciences.
He made two telling points - they're as true today as in 1979:

   1.  CS spends all its time trying to pretend there's no machine there.
   2.  There is no literature in CS in the same sense as the other
		sciences.

The discussion allued to in the referenced ariticle falls in the latter
critism.

-- 
Steve (really "D. E.") Stevenson           steve@hubcap.clemson.edu
Department of Computer Science,            (803)656-5880.mabell
Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1906

retrac@titan.rice.edu (John Carter) (11/17/87)

In article <695@polyslo.UUCP> sdejarne@polyslo.UUCP (Steve DeJarnett) writes:
>In article <16526@clyde.ATT.COM> spf@moss.UUCP (Steve Frysinger) writes:
>>after that...) include substantial courses from the civil engineering
>>domain (strength of materials, statics and dynamics, structural
>>characteristics of concrete (as if tasteful people would build with
>>concrete!)), in addition to the "artistic" courses in visual design,
>>living space human factors, &c.  Most architecture undergrad programs
>>are 5 year programs
>     ^
>Here at Cal Poly (which certainly isn't indicative of the rest of the world), 
>there are 2 architecture degrees.  One is just plain Architecture (you know,
>draw the buildings, come up with great ideas, etc.).  They take 1 year of
>calculus, 2 quarters of Physics, and that's about it.  The other degree is 
>Architectural Engineering (still under the Architecture school, though).  They
>are a 5 year program, and take all of the Strength of Materials, statics &
>dynamics, structural engineering, etc. type of classes.  A friend of mine is
>studying to be an architect also at Washington Univ. (St. Louis), and their 
>architecture program is a 4 year also.  Therefore, not all architects are
>structural engineers.

  To add my $0.02, here at Rice there are basically two Architecture degrees.
One is a BA in Architectural Studies, which according to my undergrad roomate
(an architect student) is basically useless.  The main degree is a BArch which
takes *6* years (its a real-man's degree :-).  The fifth year is a year of
preceptorship with a major firm (he worked for KPF (?) in New York, others
work for people like Bofill in Spain, etc.).  The Architectural Studies
degree is generally given to the students that are not selected to be
preceptors or decide they can't handle 6 years of really hard work.  They
have a lot of structural design classes (a good half dozen or so) and he
took quite a few Computer Aided Design and Analysis classes.

  Architecture is probably the most work of any degree here.  It is in a
separate school, but they work with several other schools closely (esp.
Engineering and Fine Arts).  The dropout/cut rate is VERY high and the
workload in very intense.  I can remember quite a few occasions when I got
back to the room at about 6am after a long night of hackin' and we met each
other at the door (both just getting in).

  He has a good friend at CalPoly (Victor Garcia) who he's always kind of
envied for getting a degree in *only* 5 years.  I always thought 6 years for
a bachelors degree was a bit ridiculous...

John Carter
Rice University

=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
*   UUCP: {Backbone or Internet site}!rice!retrac       oo                   =
=   ARPA:  retrac@rice.edu                              <                    *
*   CSNET: retrac@rice.edu                              U  - Bleh.           =
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*

davel@whuts.UUCP (LOEWENSTERN) (11/17/87)

I don't know what this is doing in comp.edu, but ...
   I would like to add to your list of "bad architecture" -- Erdman Hall,
Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr,PA.  Designed to be a modern concrete version
of a Scottish castle.  It succeeds -- it is dark, draughty, and damp.  The
entrance hall has a terrible echo.  People living in the basement complain
that they are in "the dungeon".  But it IS fortified against attack by
sword-wielding tribesmen!!!




-- 
David Loewenstern  {rutgers...}!moss!whuts!davel
The above opinions are my own.  Although ATT-BL has had an influence upon them,
so has my third-grade gym teacher.  I don't hold them responsible and neither
should you.

spf@clyde.UUCP (11/17/87)

In article <353@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> jwb@CIVE.RI.CMU.EDU
John Baugh took offense at my comments about architecture and engineering:

>What gives you this impression?  Certification of structural integrity
>is required by a registered professional ENGINEER ...
   ...
>you'll never be able to design structures with that background, even
>if someone actually let you.
   ...
>The "who's curriculum is harder" syndrome ... pointless.
   ...
>John Baugh (a once practicing, now academic, engineer)

Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers, John.  But you're obviously
thinking about "public" structures (arenas, hotels, etc), and I'm
thinking about houses and barns.  I've never known anyone who employed
an engineer to design a house.  In fact, most people I know don't
even employ architects; they design them themselves.  I've just
finished designing a two-story addition to our house, and a two-story
post-and-beam barn which is going up in the spring.  Anyone who
understands Newtonian mechanics and can read references on material
characteristics can do this (it helps to be able to draw well, too).
Many professions rely on mystification to protect their practicioners;
I don't claim that architecture and civil engineering fall into this
category, but they DO run dangerously close to the edge.

Perhaps for office buildings and housing projects the governments
involved show preference for engineering or architectural licenses.

Steve Frysinger, SFIT (Sheep Farmer In Training)
   (financed by doing computer engineering and psychology)

cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (11/19/87)

In article <3807@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes:
>
>Any body feel like commenting on the causes of the lack of math skills
>of incoming freshman? Primarily those who get to college and can't do
>trig or basic analytical geometry?
>

     I know of several individuals in the computer science and engineering
programs in Boston University who have never taken trigonometry in high
school.  These same individuals cannot grasp even the basic fundamentals
of abstract math theory, including induction and fixed-point calculation.
There is a remedial course here specifically for those individuals:
MA 118 Algebra and Trigonometry.  Since I was well above that level upon
entering the university, I have no concrete proof of the difficulty of the
course.  However, I can tell you of the many complaints I have heard from
people successfully completing the course as to its difficulty.
     These individuals have graduated from primarily liberal arts high
schools (ie. private institutions).  Some teach only the basics of certain
subjects; others really pound the material into your skull.  I know this
because I have two younger brothers who were in private schools.
     I'm sure you've heard of Brooklyn Technical High School in New York.
I received a good education there; my schedule usually included approxi-
mately 7 subjects a day every day distributed over 8 periods of 45 minutes
each.  Among my courses were mathematics, three "pre-engineering," social
science (such as economics or history), english, and an elective (which
was usually forced upon the student).
     At Boston University, I found the level of mathematics above average
to superb depending on the instructor you chose to take the course with.
I'm in a combined BA/MA program in BU.  My undergraduate requirements
include a year of calculus, a year of discrete mathematics (combinatorics,
probability, boolean algebra, functions, graphs, optimization... the
works), one course in linear algebra (which included applications to
differential equations and least squares fit), a structured programming
language course (PASCAL), a data structures course (taught by an MIT PhD),
systems programming, a core requirement of three theory courses, and four
upper-level courses, which includes the possibility of graduate-level
courses.  At one time, BU gave me the option of taking multivariate
calculus in place of either discrete math or linear algebra.
     For my graduate requirements, I am to complete 8 courses in computer
science, including 5 in a specified core.  I am also required to write a
thesis.  I am currently working on the graduate portion of my BA/MA.
     Could anyone disclose some undergrad or grad requirements to me
from your respective school?  Thanks.

     xxxx  xxx  xxx xxxxxx
    xx  xx  xx xx    xx  xx
    xx      xxxx     xx  xx         Send responses to...
    xx  xx  xx xx    xx  xx
     xxxx  xxx  xxx xxxxxx          cd@bu-cs.buacca.bu.edu
      ----  --   --  ------
     --       - -     --   -
       --      -  -    --   -
         ----- --   --  -----

cd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Clarence K. Din) (11/20/87)

In article <421@uni2.bcm.tmc.edu> rick@svedberg.bcm.tmc.edu (Richard H. Miller) writes:

>Quit true. One of the worst failings I have found with recent CS graduates 
>it their total lack of exposure to maintenance of large systems. They have
>never really seen a large system. (Such is usually found on most mainframe
>systems.) They really don't seem to grasp the concepts required to maintain
>this type of system as well as understanding the requirements for modifying 
>software projects. They also have never really been exposed to a variety of
>different software systems. This seems to be especially true of CS departments
>which teach ONLY Unix.

     We, at Boston University have two software engineering courses that
DO have exposure to large systems.  A current project in CS 511, our
Software Engineering course, using UNIX, is an implementation of Hypertext.
As its instructor describes, "this is really a course on management, and
for many of you, this may be your first exposure to management skills."

     So there ARE CS programs which expose CS people to large systems.  Anyone
out there with similar thoughts?

     Clarence K. Din

     cd@bu-cs.buacca.bu.edu

     

elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (11/28/87)

In article <16216@bu-cs.BU.EDU> cd@bu-cs.UUCP (Clarence K. Din) writes:
>In article <3807@eecae.UUCP> lawitzke@eecae.UUCP (John Lawitzke) writes:
>>Any body feel like commenting on the causes of the lack of math skills
>>of incoming freshman? Primarily those who get to college and can't do
>>trig or basic analytical geometry?
>     I know of several individuals in the computer science and engineering
>programs in Boston University who have never taken trigonometry in high
>school.  These same individuals cannot grasp even the basic fundamentals
>of abstract math theory, including induction and fixed-point calculation.

Most probably because their math teachers in elementary and high schools could
barely count their toes on their feet, and certainly would not have been able
to explain oddities like the fact that digits are not numbers, etc. etc.
etc...  if one has never before encountered the abstract, facing the abstract
becomes quite a challenge. All in all, most experts agree that math education
for the average U.S. child is abysimal (see various studies contrasting U.S.
students against e.g. European students).

>     I'm sure you've heard of Brooklyn Technical High School in New York.
>I received a good education there; my schedule usually included approxi-
>mately 7 subjects a day every day distributed over 8 periods of 45 minutes
>each.  Among my courses were mathematics, three "pre-engineering," social
>science (such as economics or history), english, and an elective (which
>was usually forced upon the student).

Unfortunately, only 2% of the U.S. lives within hour's distance of Brooklyn,
and there are no such schools in the 2% of the U.S. that I live in
(Louisiana). Trigonometry is offered here, but that's the highest that it
goes. As for "pre-engineering", etc., HAH! Teachers here are hard pressed to
teach their students how to read and write and add 2+2, except in the elite
schools in the suburbs which get all the money because rich politician's
children go to school there (thankfully, 60% of La. school funding is
state-provided under a strict per-student formula, or things would be even
worse).  The biggest challenge is the lack of qualified teachers in non-elite
schools, due to the salary inequities and crumbling lab equipment and large
student-teacher ratios etc... no matter how much dedication and perseverence a
teacher has, he/she must eat, too. The only thing a parent can do currently,
besides politicking (and parent pro-education groups are hot'n'heavy here), is
move to the suburbs. It concerns me greatly that the lower 30/40% of the
income bracket doesn't have that option, dooming their children to, at best, a
merely adequate education, despite whatever talent that child has.

Many of my friends are from overseas (about 60% of the CS enrollment at my
university is non-American). I was talking to one person from a mid-east
country (before all the troubles there that led to the retraction of most of
those students), and he mentioned that by the time he had graduated from high
school, he'd taken two years of Calculus. He started taking Algebra etc. in
either the 6th or 7th grade, I don't remember which. I think it's a shame that
we take 8 years to teach our kids just how to add, subtract, multiply, and
divide, and that many of our "gifted and talented" students are turned off by
"math" because it is "repetitive and mechanical" (a quote from the
co-ordinator of the Lafayette Parish Gifted & Talented Program). Until we
start teaching our elementary school teachers mathematics instead of
arithmetic, and until we expect them to challenge our best students instead of
boring them, I think you'll continue to find that the majority of American
students simply are not prepared to take mathematics courses on the college
level. 

--
     Eric Green   elg@usl.CSNET      Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191       
     {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg       Lafayette, LA 70509             
Hello darkness my old friend, I've come to talk withordeordeoh ih i

levy@ttrdc.UUCP (12/01/87)

In article <2232@killer.UUCP>, elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes:
> All in all, most experts agree that math education
> for the average U.S. child is abysimal

I'd wager that spelling education is almost as bad. :-)

[Please, no meta-flames.  This was just ASKING for it...]
-- 
|------------Dan Levy------------|  Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
|         an Engihacker @        |  	<most AT&T machines>}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy
| AT&T Computer Systems Division |  Disclaimer?  Huh?  What disclaimer???
|--------Skokie, Illinois--------|