st122@sdcc12.UUCP (st122) (09/13/86)
I am expert computer scientist specializing in systems management, software engineering, and communications interfacing. I have been in the field for 8 years and know 6 languages (Fortran, C, Pascal, Basic, Assembly (z-80, 8088, PDP-11/lsi, cal 16d) and ada), have worked with everything from unix to mdos, and in addition have built (and partially designed) a variable ten-step waverform polyphonic synthesizer. I have written everything from video games, to word processors, to missle simulations, to 3-d graphics, to real time energy control. Having stated a few of my qualifications I would just like to say "WAKE UP", you don't need hardly any electronics or engineering classes to be an expert programmer The two fields can easily be seperately defined and in many fields can be mutually exclusive. Although most engineering students will need the aid of computers in their work, it is highly doubtful that computer scientists will need engineering classes such as Electricity and Magnetism, circuit design or whatever wherever they may go. I was the soul computer scientist for a group in Radar Defense at Teledyne Ryan Electronics. At the time I only knew the concept of a battery and how to make a lightbulb work by connecting it to the battery's two poles. I was promoted with a substatial raise after two months with the company, strictly due to my performance. The point is not to be arrogant but to offer proof that you don't need to know hardly anything about electronics to be a "hot" software engineer. If you want to design computers, FINE, GET A DEGREE IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING! Computer Software is a ligimate field, and anyone who doesn't think so has a strict problem with reality. You will very rarely need hardware skills in the computer field as a software designer. You can easily understand io devices and how to optimise data communication links with very little hardware knowledge (you can study the manuals of the hardware you are concerned and learn all you need to know). Now being quite good with electronics (evidence: my synthesizer) I still insist that the knowledge helps very little for such tasks as disk i/o optimization, program optimization, and certainly not systems management. Hardware is for hardware people. PLEASE DON'T INSIST THAT EVERYONE WITH AN INTEREST IN COMPUTER SOFTWARE ENGINEERING BE STUCK STUDYING BORING PHYSICS, Circuit design, or even Chemistry (as with UCSD CE program). Dr. Kenneth Bowles, designer of the UCSD P-system and now with Telesoft, Inc. holds this same view. Computer Science is a ligitimate field and should not be confused with EE. Those of you who want to know more about electronics and every nor gate, or cmos chip device, the more power to you. BUT STOP INFLICTING YOUR IDEAS OF WHAT COMPUTER SCIENCE PEOPLE MUST DO BEYOND SOFTWARE. Software engineering is intensive enough without having to analyze the magnetic fields present a transformer. Allowing software people to really learn and practice software necessitates many years of just software practice. Frank Bellucci (UCSD Energy Management, st122@sdcc12)
calhoun@mcc-pp.UUCP (Myron Calhoun) (09/16/86)
> Keywords: Wake up to reality! > > I am expert computer scientist specializing in systems management, > software engineering, and communications interfacing. I have > been in the field for 8 years and know 6 languages > (Fortran, C, Pascal, Basic, Assembly (z-80, 8088, PDP-11/lsi, > cal 16d) and ada), have worked with everything from unix to mdos, > and in addition have built (and partially designed) a variable > ten-step waverform polyphonic synthesizer. I have written > everything from video games, to word processors, to missle > simulations, to 3-d graphics, to real time energy control. > > Having stated a few of my qualifications I would just like > to say "WAKE UP", you don't need hardly any electronics or > engineering classes to be an expert programmer. The two > fields can easily be seperately defined and in many fields > can be mutually exclusive. Although most engineering students > will need the aid of computers in their work, it is highly > doubtful that computer scientists will need engineering classes > such as Electricity and Magnetism, circuit design or whatever > wherever they may go. I was the soul computer scientist for > a group in Radar Defense at Teledyne Ryan Electronics. At the > time I only knew the concept of a battery and how to make a > lightbulb work by connecting it to the battery's two poles. > I was promoted with a substatial raise after two months with > the company, strictly due to my performance. The point is > not to be arrogant but to offer proof that you don't need > to know hardly anything about electronics to be a "hot" > software engineer. If you want to design computers, FINE, > GET A DEGREE IN COMPUTER ENGINEERING! Computer Software > is a ligimate field, and anyone who doesn't think so has > a strict problem with reality. You will very rarely need > hardware skills in the computer field as a software > designer. You can easily understand io devices and how > to optimise data communication links with very little > hardware knowledge (you can study the manuals of the > hardware you are concerned and learn all you need to know). > > Now being quite good with electronics (evidence: my synthesizer) > I still insist that the knowledge helps very little for such tasks > as disk i/o optimization, program optimization, and certainly not > systems management. Hardware is for hardware people. PLEASE > DON'T INSIST THAT EVERYONE WITH AN INTEREST IN COMPUTER > SOFTWARE ENGINEERING BE STUCK STUDYING BORING PHYSICS, > Circuit design, or even Chemistry (as with UCSD CE program). > Dr. Kenneth Bowles, designer of the UCSD P-system and now > with Telesoft, Inc. holds this same view. Computer Science > is a ligitimate field and should not be confused with EE. > Those of you who want to know more about electronics and > every nor gate, or cmos chip device, the more power to > you. BUT STOP INFLICTING YOUR IDEAS OF WHAT COMPUTER > SCIENCE PEOPLE MUST DO BEYOND SOFTWARE. Software engineering > is intensive enough without having to analyze the magnetic > fields present a transformer. Allowing software people > to really learn and practice software necessitates many > years of just software practice. > > Frank Bellucci (UCSD Energy Management, st122@sdcc12)
calhoun@mcc-pp.UUCP (Myron Calhoun) (09/17/86)
Re: > Keywords: Wake up to reality! > ..... everything deleted ..... > Frank Bellucci (UCSD Energy Management, st122@sdcc12) Obviously I goofed on my first-ever try in posting a followup--my apologies for making you read his whole article again and never finding my comments! I'll try again: I feel Frank is holding his own experience out to be "truth" for us all. I, too, am an expert (right now I'm almost 700 miles from home!) computer scientist AND an electrical engineering specializing in all kinds of things. I also (try to) teach many of those things to others. I have been in the field for 20 years (since Ph.D.) and know umpteen languages, have worked with everything from unix to mdos, both in industry and as a college professor, and in addition have ........ etc. etc. Having stated a few of my qualifications I would just like to say that I have found my interest in both hardware AND software to be INVALUABLE and heartily advise others *WHO HAVE SIMILAR INTERESTS* to study both. I have never regretted my decision to study both; but I don't claim that everyone ought to do so. (If everyone knew everything I did, my employers wouldn't be nearly so willing to pay me as well as they do!) Perhaps everyone formally studying some area (e.g., in college) ought to take at least a *beginning* course in all possible aspects of that area, but beyond that, having the same fixed requirements for everyone is probably wasteful. It might be instructive to ask your local college placement center about average salary offers to EE, CS, and EE+CS (or CE?) students. At my university (in Kansas), the rank begins with CS and ends with EE+CS at the top. To me, this shows that knowing both is more valuable than knowing just one. (And if I could only study one, it would be EE!) And to Frank I'd like to say that just as knowing a little spelling and English (and even typing skills and how to use a spelling checker!) seem to be beneficial to computer scientists, so also does a little hardware skill seem beneficial. One does not necessarily need to learn that skill in college, but that is often the easiest way to get started.
liberte@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (09/17/86)
For the most part, I agree with this statement. But I would want to broaden the association of CS beyond simply "software" to include the abstractions of hardware functionality and the (abstract) mathematical foundations of CS. Programming is a legitimate subset of CS just as there are subsets of other fields. "Software Engineering" is a larger subset, but is still not all of CS. CS in the broadest sense is concerned with "abstract processes". But then maybe that is too much. Dan LaLiberte liberte@b.cs.uiuc.edu liberte@uiuc.csnet ihnp4!uiucdcs!liberte
faiman@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (09/17/86)
I suppose that Mr Balucci is right in stressing the importance of "Fortran, C, Pascal, Basic, Assembly and ada." As for English, ah well, that's another matter. Mike Faiman -- Illinois
faiman@uiucdcsb.CS.UIUC.EDU (09/17/86)
Sorry. That should, of course, have been "Bellucci."