By the way, you can listen to me read this post aloud on my Patreon, along with many other audio recordings. Four ginever glasses sit on a mirrored table at Distilleerderij’t Nieuwe Diep in F…
this is AI but it felt a lot more guy with broken gear
I’m probably projecting a baggage of dozens of conversations with people that unironically argue that a CS university should prepare you for working in industry as a programmer, but that’s because I can’t really discern the author’s perspective on this from the text.
In either case,
to teach actual competence despite it
I think my point is that “competent programmer” as viewed by the industry is a vastly different thing than a “competent computer scientist” in a philosophical sense. Computer science really struggles with this because many things require both being a good engineer and a good scientist? For an analogy, an electric engineer and a physicist specialising in electrical circuits are two vastly different professions, and you don’t need to know what an electron is to do the first. Whereas in computer science, like, you can’t build a compiler without knowing your shit both around software engineering and theoretical concepts.
Let me also add that I think I never wrote a post where I would more like people to come and disagree with me. I might be very well talking some bullshit based on my vibes here, since all of this is basically vibes from mingling around with both industry and academia people…
I mean, that’s a problem with the field. Most of your work will be dredging the maintenance sewers, but also you will need to know the computer science, at least to be able to spot an O(n^2) in the wild.
(the sweet spot of algorithmic complexity, so easy to get away with when n is small so you fill your codebase with them, and so certain to fuck you up the moment n gets large)
If you keep in the mind the original angst of the students “I have to learn how to use LLMs or I’ll get left behind” they themselves have a vocational understanding of their degree. And it is sensible to address those concerns practically (though as stated in another comment, I don’t believe in accepting the default use of generative tools).
On a more philosophical note I think STEM fields (and any really general well-rounded education) would benefit from delving (!) deeper in library science/archival science/philosophy and their application to history, and that coincidentally that would make a lot of people better at troubleshooting and legacy code untangling.
would benefit from delving (!) deeper in library science/archival science/philosophy and their application to history
Ooh, would you say more about this? I have opinions, but that’s because I’m a programmer now but formerly a librarian & archivist (on the digital side, it’s more common to go back and forth between them; it’s the same degree).
I’m afraid my thoughts on the matter aren’t that deep or well informed ^^.
In no particular order:
I grew up in France, and my (probably biased) view, it tends a bit more towards teaching “Literary” subjects, including for engineering students. I think in general this does indeed develop literacy and critical thinking.
France has “Professors Documentalist” and we call our school libraries “Center for Documentation and Information” from middle school up, with a few (very) introductory courses on using Thesaurus, Bibliography and digital index cards tools (this may of become enshittified by the availability of google since my time there)
I have a small Lexicography hobby.
I have a small reading old sources hobby.
I think more “Traditional” digital search is still incredibly valuable
I think principles predating the digital age are still incredibly valuable
The way STEM fields are taught is often focused on “one correct answer”, and i don’t remember that much focus being put on where the sources come from, comparing differing sources, or even any emphasis on how can be certain a given source has been accurately transmitted to the present age in history.
I think information retrieval is a vital skill (especially with the enshitification of google) that all fields when benefit practitionners from being more comfortable with (though of course it’s still its own job).
I think software engineers in particular, during their education, would be well served by practical examples of reconciling conflicting or uncertain sources, and I think history is a good lens (less abstract vs software).
I’m probably projecting a baggage of dozens of conversations with people that unironically argue that a CS university should prepare you for working in industry as a programmer, but that’s because I can’t really discern the author’s perspective on this from the text.
In either case,
I think my point is that “competent programmer” as viewed by the industry is a vastly different thing than a “competent computer scientist” in a philosophical sense. Computer science really struggles with this because many things require both being a good engineer and a good scientist? For an analogy, an electric engineer and a physicist specialising in electrical circuits are two vastly different professions, and you don’t need to know what an electron is to do the first. Whereas in computer science, like, you can’t build a compiler without knowing your shit both around software engineering and theoretical concepts.
Let me also add that I think I never wrote a post where I would more like people to come and disagree with me. I might be very well talking some bullshit based on my vibes here, since all of this is basically vibes from mingling around with both industry and academia people…
I mean, that’s a problem with the field. Most of your work will be dredging the maintenance sewers, but also you will need to know the computer science, at least to be able to spot an O(n^2) in the wild.
(the sweet spot of algorithmic complexity, so easy to get away with when n is small so you fill your codebase with them, and so certain to fuck you up the moment n gets large)
If you keep in the mind the original angst of the students “I have to learn how to use LLMs or I’ll get left behind” they themselves have a vocational understanding of their degree. And it is sensible to address those concerns practically (though as stated in another comment, I don’t believe in accepting the default use of generative tools).
On a more philosophical note I think STEM fields (and any really general well-rounded education) would benefit from delving (!) deeper in library science/archival science/philosophy and their application to history, and that coincidentally that would make a lot of people better at troubleshooting and legacy code untangling.
Ooh, would you say more about this? I have opinions, but that’s because I’m a programmer now but formerly a librarian & archivist (on the digital side, it’s more common to go back and forth between them; it’s the same degree).
I’m afraid my thoughts on the matter aren’t that deep or well informed ^^.
In no particular order:
I’d be interested in your perspective!