>>10060694
>the languages are the hard parts of computer science
Maybe if you're a webdev or some braindead script monkey (or a compiler developer, but they're usually geniuses). Computer science is a truly infinite field that, unlike physics or chemistry, isn't limited in its progress by our tools, at least not anymore. It is pure semantics, but instead of poorly reasoned philosophical drivel or bad math theses, the ultimate test for an idea is "does it work?" or at least "does it help us to get some other specific thing to work?". If you want to get the shallowest glimpse of a single one of the problems we're trying to tackle, I'd recommend this:
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/We-Really-Dont-Know-How-To-Compute
There are no problems in analytical philosophy that can't be taken as a subset of computability theory. If you want to keep learning and expanding a field of knowledge without having to be dependent on university owned hardware, grants, or any of the bullshit of academia, start learning computer science, but say goodbye to ever thinking you have a general grasp of the majority of your field. Also, navel-gazers and postmodern hucksters get no respect here. You have to make something work or demonstrate that something could work, or you're a nobody.
>>10060843
Math is just a subset of computer science now, anyway. You're basically an alchemist during the nascent stage of chemistry.
Not that I don't think OP sounds like a gigantic faggot, by the way.