On the one hand, the physicist counterpart sets a high conversational bar. On the other hand, even in academia the "computer science is fixing computers" misconception and the lack of awareness of theoretical aspects to computer science are very pervasive; this is a good resource.
Additionally, I'm happy to see my academic pick-up fantasy played out. :)
One thing that has always struck me as odd is the convention of calling theoretical discussions on the nature of information 'Computer Science' but calling discussions of computers 'Information Science'.
In many cases I find it more than a little difficult to separate the two. I would say that Knuth presented a theoretical construct in TAOCP ("Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."), however it has as many practical implications as it does theoretical. Proper algorithm choice in my area (systems programming) can often mean the difference between 10 cycles and 10,000 cycles. Of course, I am also a physics minor, so perhaps I see through rose-colored glasses.
P.S. I think I've been programming in assembly for too long today. I read "convention of calling..." as "calling convention" and my mind immediately jumped off and started listing %rdi, %rsi...
3 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 20.2 ms ] threadAdditionally, I'm happy to see my academic pick-up fantasy played out. :)
P.S. I think I've been programming in assembly for too long today. I read "convention of calling..." as "calling convention" and my mind immediately jumped off and started listing %rdi, %rsi...