Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #91099 > unrolled thread

OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-04 02:20 +0000
    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-04 03:17 +0000
      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-04 12:56 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-04 14:44 +0100
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-04 18:48 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-04 16:00 +0000
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-04 23:19 +0000
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-05 00:59 +0000
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-05 01:26 +0000
              Intel and IEEE 754 (was: Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers?) Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 03:06 +0100
                Re: Intel and IEEE 754 (was: Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers?) Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-05 02:27 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-05 03:25 -0400
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-05 17:56 +0000
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-05 21:30 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-05 22:38 +0000
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 01:59 +0000
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-06 03:08 +0000
                  Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-06 03:51 +0000
                    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 06:43 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-06 02:43 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-04 18:37 +0000
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-04 21:20 -0400
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Leroy H <lh@somewhere.net> - 2026-09-05 01:40 +0000
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-05 03:46 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-05 03:36 -0400
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-05 18:09 +0000
                  Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 19:23 +0100
                    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-06 02:49 +0000
                      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-06 03:51 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-04 22:36 +0000
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-06 06:50 +0000
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-09-07 04:14 -0400
            Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 12:05 +0100
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-07 09:17 -0400
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 15:02 +0100
                Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-07 19:16 +0000
                  Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-07 22:26 +0100
                    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-08 04:18 +0000
                      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-08 04:38 +0000
                      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-09-08 05:43 +0000
                        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-09-09 04:25 +0000
                          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-09 09:35 +0100
                  Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2026-09-07 18:58 -0400
                    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-08 04:47 +0000
              Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-09-14 17:18 +0000
    Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 02:50 +0100
      Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 08:37 +0100
        Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-09-05 10:20 +0100
          Re: OT: Does Computer Science Need Computers? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-09-05 18:31 +0000

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

#91198

On 2026-09-08, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Sep 2026 04:18:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> I was lucky enough to work in small shops. I got the specs, then
>> designed and wrote the programs myself - all the while thumbing my
>> nose at the Structured Programming revolution, which I saw as the
>> culmination of bureaucracy's attempts to infiltrate every aspect of
>> our lives.
>
> In the real world, requirements change all the time. If you waited
> until the specs were completely nailed down before writing the first
> line of code, you would never get any code written.

    Frozen specs and the Abominable Snowman have a lot in common:
    both are myths, and both melt when enough heat is applied.
      -- anon.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  In this world there are
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  two kinds of people:
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  1. Those who can extrapolate
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |  from incomplete data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91208

On 09/09/2026 05:25, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-09-08, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 08 Sep 2026 04:18:38 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> I was lucky enough to work in small shops. I got the specs, then
>>> designed and wrote the programs myself - all the while thumbing my
>>> nose at the Structured Programming revolution, which I saw as the
>>> culmination of bureaucracy's attempts to infiltrate every aspect of
>>> our lives.
>>
>> In the real world, requirements change all the time. If you waited
>> until the specs were completely nailed down before writing the first
>> line of code, you would never get any code written.
> 
>      Frozen specs and the Abominable Snowman have a lot in common:
>      both are myths, and both melt when enough heat is applied.
>        -- anon.
> 
That is the importance of software engineering methodology.
Spec,  build test and assess.
Then rewrite what bits of the spec are necessary and recode.
If you assume that the original spec was 100% OK, you end up with hard 
coded shit

But if you have no spec at all, then you end up with nothing to test 
against and everything at the whim of the coder, which leads to the 
total mess most websites are

-- 
"I guess a rattlesnake ain't risponsible fer bein' a rattlesnake, but ah 
puts mah heel on um jess the same if'n I catches him around mah chillun".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91169

rbowman wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):

> On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 09:17:02 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote this screed in ALL-CAPS (fixed):
>> 
>>> <snip>
>>>> 
>>> More clulessness. You dint write COBOL and document it later.
>>> You wrote a business analsyis case, designed your data structures and
>>> wrote in plain english how these would be affected bu any cobol module.
>>>
>>> The actual code was done by monkeys slavishily following the spec.
>> 
>> That's no fun!
>
> At that point 'programmer' was an entry level position slightly better 
> than keypunch operator. You slowly ascended the hill to programmer analyst 
> and system analyst. 
>
> Top-down structured programming was the mantra. After months of meetings, 
> flow charts, pseudocode, and so worth the system was designed and then it 
> was coded. Of course during those months there were pissing contests as 
> those involved tried to carve out their fiefdoms. If, during the coding 
> phase, the design was discovered to have massive problems, well tough 
> shit.  The glorious design isn't going to be modified for mere reality.
>
> I think the DoD still works on that principle. 

I worked on a significant DoD project that used C++, then the
"managers" decided to add Java (and Javascript) to the mix.
Eventually the bean counters chose another company over ours
because of "cost".

The government civilian manager later mentioned that the new
people wanted to rewrite it their own way.

I'm glad to be retired from that churn.

My own github code has some minor churn, but I work at my own pace.

-- 
<Knghtbrd> 2fort5 sucks enough to have its own gravity ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91174

On Mon, 7 Sep 2026 18:58:30 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I worked on a significant DoD project that used C++, then the "managers"
> decided to add Java (and Javascript) to the mix. Eventually the bean
> counters chose another company over ours because of "cost".
> 
> The government civilian manager later mentioned that the new people
> wanted to rewrite it their own way.

I only lasted about 6 months then the Walker spy ring hit the fan. DISCO 
decided that the safest way to avoid embarrassing themselves by issuing 
clearances to spies was not to issue any. I was bored anyway and moved on 
to greener pastures.

I'd been doing some moonlight coding for a separate project one of the 
managers had going on. Almost a year later I called him to get my tax 
information and asked if they had written any code yet. Nope. 

The meetings were legendary. Long fights about whether the paragraph 
should be iv. or a1. I had a nephew who made a decent living as a 
consultant familiar with the niceties of government documentation, when to 
dot the Is and cross the Ts.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91432

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/09/2026 09:14, c186282 wrote:
>> On 9/6/26 02:50, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 Sep 2026 12:56:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... mention COBOL ... and their faces would turn green.
>>>
>>> Another of the ironies of COBOL was that it was supposedly focused 
>>> very strictly on “business” needs.  So you had very limited 
>>> string-processing capabilities or any dynamic storage allocation, 
>>> because supposedly “business” applications didn’t require that.  
>>> Instead, the language put a lot of effort into dealing with all 
>>> kinds of complexities involving ISAM files.
>>>
> Another clueless dimwit who has no idea of the environment in which 
> the language was developed.

Note the source you quoted....  Our local Troll.  So of course the 
paragraph has a "cluelessness" aspect intentionally woven in to trigger 
some "troll results".

>>> Then relational databases became popular among “business” users.  
>>> And the best way to interface to them involved dynamically 
>>> generating SQL query strings.  Which COBOL wasn’t very good at -- 
>>> and still isn’t, as far as I can tell.  Various vendor-proprietary 
>>> extensions dealt with this by letting a program embed 
>>> statically-defined query templates, but that sacrificed 
>>> portability.  And it still didn’t deal very well with more ad-hoc 
>>> database access -- which “business” users found was a very useful 
>>> thing to do.
>>>
>>> And nowadays, who has even heard of ISAM files? Can you even find them
>>> in “business” environments any more?
>> 
> More cluelessness

See above.

>>    COBOL *would* get it done - by SOME means.
>> 
>>    However it wasn't always very EASY or LOGICAL means.
>> 
>>    The original goal of an "English-ish" lang that would
>>    self-document - BIG FAIL.
>> 
> More clulessness. You dint write COBOL and document it later.
> You wrote a business analsyis case, designed your data structures and 
> wrote in plain english how these would be affected bu any cobol module.
> 
> The actual code was done by monkeys slavishily following the spec.

Just like Java programming for "enterprise" is done today.  Only now 
they call slice and dice "the spec" into numerous "User Stories" that 
are but a tiny slice of the whole spec.  So the code monkeys never even 
get a view of the big picture of what they are being asked to code 
towards.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91113

On 2026-09-04, rbowman wrote:

> https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-computer-science-need-computers-20260828/


From <https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-computer-science-need-computers-20260828/>:
> "Yet Turing's theory of computation wasn't really about computers, at
> least not at first. When Turing wrote his seminal paper, not only did
> he not have a general-purpose computer, he wasn't even motivated by a
> desire to understand how such future machines might work. Rather, he
> was trying to solve a central problem in the foundations of
> mathematics. He viewed his machine as a way to model the mental
> activity of a human doing calculations."

... but it *was* about computers. A "human doing calculations" *is* a
computer.

(I suppose the name of the Association for *Computing Machinery* also
arises out of this?)

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91119

On 05/09/2026 02:50, Nuno Silva wrote:
> On 2026-09-04, rbowman wrote:
> 
>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-computer-science-need-computers-20260828/
> 
> 
>  From <https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-computer-science-need-computers-20260828/>:
>> "Yet Turing's theory of computation wasn't really about computers, at
>> least not at first. When Turing wrote his seminal paper, not only did
>> he not have a general-purpose computer, he wasn't even motivated by a
>> desire to understand how such future machines might work. Rather, he
>> was trying to solve a central problem in the foundations of
>> mathematics. He viewed his machine as a way to model the mental
>> activity of a human doing calculations."
> 
> ... but it *was* about computers. A "human doing calculations" *is* a
> computer.
> 
> (I suppose the name of the Association for *Computing Machinery* also
> arises out of this?)
> 
I have to agree. Turing was interested in how sequential algorithms 
behaved. His 'machine' was a stylised and formalised example of such.

It happened to coincide with the work at Bletchley Park building 
algorithmic machines to decode algorithmic encryption.

Done mainly by others.

Ultimately Turing's machine was given shape and substance by Von Neumann 
et al.

No one disputes that a lot of theory - maths theory - went into all 
this, but by the 1960s that work was largely all done.

We still need the odd CompSci, but not very many.




-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as 
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91121

On 2026-09-05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 05/09/2026 02:50, Nuno Silva wrote:
>> On 2026-09-04, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-computer-science-need-computers-20260828/
>>
>>
>>  From
>> <https://www.quantamagazine.org/does-computer-science-need-computers-20260828/>:
>>> "Yet Turing's theory of computation wasn't really about computers, at
>>> least not at first. When Turing wrote his seminal paper, not only did
>>> he not have a general-purpose computer, he wasn't even motivated by a
>>> desire to understand how such future machines might work. Rather, he
>>> was trying to solve a central problem in the foundations of
>>> mathematics. He viewed his machine as a way to model the mental
>>> activity of a human doing calculations."
>>
>> ... but it *was* about computers. A "human doing calculations" *is* a
>> computer.
>>
>> (I suppose the name of the Association for *Computing Machinery* also
>> arises out of this?)
>>
> I have to agree. Turing was interested in how sequential algorithms
> behaved. His 'machine' was a stylised and formalised example of such.

It is an abstraction to be able to talk about algorithms, a common
language, one of several, but of quite significant value as it allows
e.g. comparing problems or proving problems to be "translatable into"
(reducible to) other problems, inheriting proven characteristics for
that other problem like complexity bounds or intractability.

> It happened to coincide with the work at Bletchley Park building
> algorithmic machines to decode algorithmic encryption.
>
> Done mainly by others.
>
> Ultimately Turing's machine was given shape and substance by Von
> Neumann et al.
>
> No one disputes that a lot of theory - maths theory - went into all
> this, but by the 1960s that work was largely all done.
>
> We still need the odd CompSci, but not very many.

A tragedy is possibly how in English-speaking countries "Computer
Science" appears to be widely used to denote also most software-related
fields and stuff related to computing machinery.

Other languages have less confusing usages like "Tietotekniikka" and
"Informática". But IIRC we've discussed this at some point in the past
two years, possibly not on this group (in that case, it was likely
alt.folklore.computers, but I think it *was* here?).

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#91129

On Sat, 05 Sep 2026 10:20:09 +0100, Nuno Silva wrote:

> A tragedy is possibly how in English-speaking countries "Computer
> Science"
> appears to be widely used to denote also most software-related fields
> and stuff related to computing machinery.

Blame the Brits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Diploma_in_Computer_Science

Purdue was arguably the first CS degree in the US.

https://www.cs.purdue.edu/history/index.html

Florida Institute of Technology also claims to be first. What surprised me 
was Dartmouth. BASIC was invented there in 1964 and I always assumed they 
had a CS program. 

https://home.dartmouth.edu/news/2024/08/30-years-computer-science-
department

If CS was split off from the Department of Mathematics in 1994 I don't 
know what degrees were issued before then. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web