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

Groups > comp.programming > #2761 > unrolled thread

EE or CS?

Back to article view | Back to comp.programming

Contents

  EE or CS? bob <bob@coolfone.comze.com> - 2013-01-08 09:28 -0800
    Re: EE or CS? Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-01-08 10:41 -0800
    Re: EE or CS? "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2013-01-08 21:41 +0100
      Re: EE or CS? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-01-08 20:50 +0000
        Re: EE or CS? "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2013-01-08 22:25 +0100
          Re: EE or CS? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-01-08 21:35 +0000
            Re: EE or CS? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-01-08 22:51 +0000
              Re: EE or CS? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-01-08 23:23 +0000
                Re: EE or CS? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-01-08 23:31 +0000
                  Re: EE or CS? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-09 12:58 +1300
                  Re: EE or CS? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 01:35 +0000
                    Re: EE or CS? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-01-09 02:13 +0000
                      Re: EE or CS? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-01-09 11:28 +0000
                        Re: EE or CS? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-01-09 12:51 +0000
                          Re: EE or CS? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-09 23:52 -0600
                            Re: EE or CS? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-01-10 12:04 +0000
                              Re: EE or CS? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-10 14:28 -0600
                                Re: EE or CS? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-01-10 21:58 +0000
                                  Re: EE or CS? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-10 18:25 -0600
                        Re: EE or CS? Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2013-01-09 05:35 -0800
                          Re: EE or CS? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-09 22:43 -0600
                            Re: EE or CS? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-01-10 12:22 +0000
                              Re: EE or CS? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-10 14:20 -0600
      Re: EE or CS? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-09 22:15 -0600
    Re: EE or CS? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-09 10:19 +1300
    Re: EE or CS? "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2013-01-08 22:54 +0000
    Re: EE or CS? Robert Miles <robertmilesxyz@gmail.com> - 2013-01-12 16:26 -0800
    Re: EE or CS? Dan <dantex1@aol.com> - 2013-02-19 19:12 -0800
      Re: EE or CS? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-02-20 09:16 +0000
        Re: EE or CS? Dan <dantex1@aol.com> - 2013-02-20 18:59 -0800
          Re: EE or CS? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2013-02-21 16:40 +1300
            Re: EE or CS? "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2013-02-21 11:45 +0100
            Re: EE or CS? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 11:45 +0000
          Re: EE or CS? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2013-02-21 07:36 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#2782

On 1/9/2013 7:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 1/9/2013 3:28 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> ...
>> Even so, you will be hard-pressed to point out a single programming
>> language
>> whose core language, comparatively, has less quirks than C's.
>
>
> Also, in analyzing C's "quirks" one needs to consider its original
> purpose and requirements. It was intended to be used as an operating
> system implementation language. It had to support memory management and
> allocation, requiring address manipulation.
>

and, also just so happened to be "just about right" for what much of the 
software industry needed out of a language for about the next 40 years.


> Patricia
>

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

#2785

"BGB" <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:kclgvv$967$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 1/9/2013 7:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>> On 1/9/2013 3:28 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:

>> Also, in analyzing C's "quirks" one needs to consider its original
>> purpose and requirements. It was intended to be used as an operating
>> system implementation language. It had to support memory management and
>> allocation, requiring address manipulation.
>>
>
> and, also just so happened to be "just about right" for what much of the 
> software industry needed out of a language for about the next 40 years.

I agree that C can do most of the things that are necessary. But so can 
assembly code.

And over 40 years it's accumulated a lot of baggage about which little can 
be done because of backwards compatibility. And that includes compilers with 
literally thousands of options, make systems and so on.

Actually for most of that period, I've used my own language for most 
situations where anyone else would have used C. While no doubt it has 
quirks and problems of it's own, at least its type declarations aren't so 
convoluted that I have to employ a third-party application (ie. Cdecl) to 
encode and decipher them!

So my issue with C isn't really what it does, but how.

-- 
Bartc 

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

#2786

On 1/10/2013 6:22 AM, BartC wrote:
>
>
> "BGB" <cr88192@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:kclgvv$967$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On 1/9/2013 7:35 AM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
>>> On 1/9/2013 3:28 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
>
>>> Also, in analyzing C's "quirks" one needs to consider its original
>>> purpose and requirements. It was intended to be used as an operating
>>> system implementation language. It had to support memory management and
>>> allocation, requiring address manipulation.
>>>
>>
>> and, also just so happened to be "just about right" for what much of
>> the software industry needed out of a language for about the next 40
>> years.
>
> I agree that C can do most of the things that are necessary. But so can
> assembly code.
>
> And over 40 years it's accumulated a lot of baggage about which little
> can be done because of backwards compatibility. And that includes
> compilers with literally thousands of options, make systems and so on.
>
> Actually for most of that period, I've used my own language for most
> situations where anyone else would have used C. While no doubt it has
> quirks and problems of it's own, at least its type declarations aren't
> so convoluted that I have to employ a third-party application (ie.
> Cdecl) to encode and decipher them!
>
> So my issue with C isn't really what it does, but how.
>

most people I think don't have much issue with the C declarations.

granted, the way they are parsed and interpreted does have the 
unfortunate side-effect of making compilers slower, but this could be 
fixed if the language were partly moved to handling declarations more 
like C# or similar.

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

#2781

On 1/8/2013 2:41 PM, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 09:28:04 -0800 (PST), bob wrote:
>
>> Why is it that computer programmers are usually bad at electrical engineering and vice versa?
>>
>> Or is this just a myth?
>
> Actually worst programmers are mathematicians. Second are physicists.
> Engineers are only third.
>
> But yes, a "real programmer" does not know which side of the soldering iron
> to hold...
>

I am a programmer, and, yes, I do know how to use a soldering iron.

not exactly all that good at math though...

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

#2765

bob wrote:
> Why is it that computer programmers are usually bad at electrical
> engineering and vice versa?
>
> Or is this just a myth?

I can't speak for electrical engineers (I do know one who excels at IT 
infrastructure planning, but no programmers), but a good number of my 
colleagues have followed my path from electronic engineering into 
programming.  The disciplines of engineering are good training for 
software development.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#2769

"bob" <bob@coolfone.comze.com> wrote in message 
news:4f2b11b3-c551-4901-90bb-c4228a89fbd3@googlegroups.com...
> Why is it that computer programmers are usually bad at electrical 
> engineering and vice versa?

Do you mean electronic engineering? At certain levels, you have to be adept 
at both.

-- 
Bartc 

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

#2801

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:28:04 AM UTC-6, bob wrote:
> Why is it that computer programmers are usually bad at electrical engineering and vice versa?
> 
> Or is this just a myth?

I did well in a combination of EE and CS, in the logic simulation specialty.  If you decide to try it, look for courses in digital logic, System Verilog, and VHDL.  A course in plain Verilog might also be useful.

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

#3055

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:28:04 AM UTC-8, bob wrote:
> Why is it that computer programmers are usually bad at electrical engineering and vice versa?

I've never heard that.   However...  there is no reason I can think of to believe that a computer programmer should know anything at all about electrical engineering.  On the flip side, an electrical engineer should know at least a 'little bit' about programming simply because a minor bit of programming is usually required as part of an engineering degree program.

Programming itself is not part of electrical engineering any more than engineering is part of programming.  I'm absolutely positive that there are some electrical engineers who are actually very good programmers (though, my guess is that the majority of them are not).  Conversely, I'm sure there are some programmers who are good electrical engineers.  However, you can be a programmer without having any concept of electrical engineering.  So... those programmers who also know electrical engineering most likely earned an electrical engineering degree (or something close to it) at some point in their lives.

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

#3058

Dan wrote:

> I've never heard that.   However...  there is no reason I can think of to
> believe that a computer programmer should know anything at all about
> electrical engineering.  On the flip side, an electrical engineer should
> know at least a 'little bit' about programming simply because a minor bit
> of programming is usually required as part of an engineering degree
> program.

Software is developed to run specifically on electrical machines.  These 
electrical machines are developed specifically to run software.  Although it 
is possible to develop software without paying any attention to the 
underlying machine, nowadays there is a significant number of jobs which 
specifically require people that have a strong background in both areas of 
expertise, because they do need those skills to be able to do their job.


Rui Maciel

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

#3071

On Wednesday, February 20, 2013 1:16:30 AM UTC-8, Rui Maciel wrote:
> Dan wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > I've never heard that.   However...  there is no reason I can think of to
> 
> > believe that a computer programmer should know anything at all about
> 
> > electrical engineering.  On the flip side, an electrical engineer should
> 
> > know at least a 'little bit' about programming simply because a minor bit
> 
> > of programming is usually required as part of an engineering degree
> 
> > program.
> 
> 
> 
> Software is developed to run specifically on electrical machines.  These 
> 
> electrical machines are developed specifically to run software.  Although it 
> 
> is possible to develop software without paying any attention to the 
> 
> underlying machine, nowadays there is a significant number of jobs which 
> 
> specifically require people that have a strong background in both areas of 
> 
> expertise, because they do need those skills to be able to do their job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rui Maciel

I totally agree that knowing something about the underlying machine can only be helpful... and for some (not most) applications, is tantamount to creating good software.  However,  that still has nothing to do with electrical engineering.  I truly do need an electrical engineer to design a computer.  However, once designed and built...  I no longer need him (well.. unless my computer breaks).  I can write fast executing, memory efficient, maintainable code all day long (even highly technical number-crunching engineering software) all while not having a clue about the underlying electrical workings of the computer I am using.   Now...  I believe that I DO have to have a decent understanding of the language I'm using and something about how that language is implemented to write all that nice, efficient code.  However, once again...  I don't see where electrical engineering has anything to do with my understanding of the language I'm using.

Anyway...  as an engineer who programs (rather than a programmer who engineers) that's just my take on it.

Dan   :-)

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

#3072

Dan wrote:
>
> I totally agree that knowing something about the underlying machine
> can only be helpful... and for some (not most) applications, is
> tantamount to creating good software.  However,  that still has
> nothing to do with electrical engineering.  I truly do need an
> electrical engineer to design a computer.

Good lord, I hope not!  You want an Electronics engineer to design a 
computer.  Just as I wouldn't fiddle with the power grid, I wouldn't let 
my Electrical engineering colleagues near my computer's innards...

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#3074

On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:40:08 +1300, Ian Collins wrote:

> Dan wrote:

>> I truly do need an
>> electrical engineer to design a computer.
> 
> Good lord, I hope not! You want an Electronics engineer to design a
> computer.

Would be fun. Next to mechanical computers (e.g. Babbage's) there were
analog and electro-mechanical ones...

P.S. Optical computing, molecular computing, quantum computing.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de

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

#3075

Ian Collins wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>>
>> I totally agree that knowing something about the underlying machine
>> can only be helpful... and for some (not most) applications, is
>> tantamount to creating good software.  However,  that still has
>> nothing to do with electrical engineering.  I truly do need an
>> electrical engineer to design a computer.
> 
> Good lord, I hope not!  You want an Electronics engineer to design a
> computer.  Just as I wouldn't fiddle with the power grid, I wouldn't let
> my Electrical engineering colleagues near my computer's innards...

Some universities offer engineering degrees which cover both electrical and 
electronics.  I happen to know of a couse whose curricular plan includes 
classes in power electronics, databases, digital systems and OO programming.


Rui Maciel

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

#3073

Dan wrote:

> I totally agree that knowing something about the underlying machine can
> only be helpful... and for some (not most) applications, is tantamount to
> creating good software.  However,  that still has nothing to do with
> electrical engineering.  I truly do need an electrical engineer to design
> a computer.  However, once designed and built...  I no longer need him
> (well.. unless my computer breaks).


FPGAs


Rui Maciel

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.programming

csiph-web