/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14752289]

Why is it called "computer science"? Is there a field of study called "calculator science" or "microscope science"?

[Anonymous No.14752300]

science understood in the aristotelian sense of systematic knowledge about in this case computers

[Anonymous No.14752305]

computer science, supposedly, is a branch of mathematics. in reality it's just retarded code monkeys who can't do basic calculus.

[Anonymous No.14752309]

>>14752289
No, microscope science is called microscopy. Because it is easier to pronounce. Computeropy is awkward to pronounce. The domain of linguistics you are concerned about would be called "suffixation"
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4047592

[Anonymous No.14752719]

What is it you don't understand about language? It isn't exactly rocket science

[Anonymous No.14752725]

computer science isn't a science and it isn't about computers. it's basically a field of applied math, though many schools water that down and just use it as a training program for software developers

[Anonymous No.14752728]

>>14752309
Computopy. Check-mate, faggot.

[Anonymous No.14752746]

>>14752289
> Is there a field of study called "microscope science
Yes, it called microscopy and is actually kind of interesting if microscopes are your thing. Computer science is closer to technology than it is to actual science.

[Anonymous No.14752756]

I feel like computer science is just a sub-field of mathematics, but related to computers.

[Anonymous No.14752757]

>>14752289
It really ought to be called computational science.

[Anonymous No.14752768]

>>14752725
>>14752756
You're both kind of right. Its a gradient. There is a subsection of applied math named applied computational math, and its probably what people think of when they imagine computer science, as these days computer science in most universities is a vocational training program.

[Anonymous No.14752789]

>>14752768
Yeah, mathematicians like to talk about numbers and put numbers in different categories. What I think is interesting is the thing called non-computable numbers. It's a mathematical concept since it's about numbers, but also related to computers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_number
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TkIe60y2GI

[Anonymous No.14752860]

Sone departments call Computation/Data Science.

[Anonymous No.14752875]

“Science” seems to imply seeking speculative knowledge of that which we don’t fully comprehend. How can we pursue knowledge of a tool we invented? What we don’t know is how to solve particular problems, like with car manufacturing. And we certainly don’t say “car science.” Unless you want to argue we’ve created a beast greater than our conception of it. “Computation” seems a better term.

[Anonymous No.14753128]

>>14752289
computer science is not about these devices called computers. it's the study of how to solve problems computationally and how to build computing systems.

[Anonymous No.14753210]

>>14752860
data science is not computer science

[Anonymous No.14755320]

>>14752289
It's easier to pronounce than "applied informal atomics".

[Anonymous No.14755595]

>>14752305
Extremely true
T. CS student who fucked it up before starting uni

[Anonymous No.14755969]

>>14752289
>microscope science
It's called microbiology anon. Calculator science is called maths. Hope this helps.

[Anonymous No.14756365]

>>14752305
this

I was an EE major and I switched to CS. My GPA skyrocketed as a result.

CS is STEM for retards.

[Anonymous No.14756549]

>>14753128
This

[Anonymous No.14756582]

>>14752725
>it's basically a field of applied math
So is physics. They're still sciences.

[Anonymous No.14756599]

Voltage multipliers

[Anonymous No.14756601]

Tape layers with etched numbers and the voltage increments activate it

[Anonymous No.14756614]

>>14756365
your school sucks ass

[Anonymous No.14757862]

>>14756365
The lowest common denominator in CS is piss easy, and unlike in engineering school, you can choose your classes to track yourself into it. These classes exist so that they can sap money from undergrads who don't give a shit about CS to fund departmental needs.

There's a stark difference in the class list and material between CS students who are working on difficult problems and those who want to coast through a major. All your post tells me is that despite grand aspirations, you were a shitter in the EE department and decided to be a shitter in the CS department because they can make a buck off your poor life choices.

[Anonymous No.14757869]

>>14752289
>calculator science
That's computer science

>microscope science
Microscopy

[Anonymous No.14757901]

>>14756365
it sounds like you’re projecting bc you were too retarded for EE. and you probably go to a shit state school

[Anonymous No.14757916]

>>14752289
computer science is not the study of digital computers.
it's branched into many different categories
>theory
math
>systems
engineering. here is probably where the association with digital computers is strongest, but when you say "systems CS studies computers," it's something like custom hardware accelerator design:
https://cs217.stanford.edu/
>applications
this is where the following question gets interesting:
>is it science
context is important. are the people doing pure algorithms or solving graph partition problems scientists? no, they're likely best described as mathematicians. even if their work has application in science, their main motivation and scope is mathematical in nature (though it's very often the case that their work is useful in science without it being first apparent - another thing they inherited from the mathematicians)
are the people studying the sequence alignment using combinatorics and complex analysis scientists? here we have more of a case, because the endeavor is a concrete model / result in biology using CS.
Computer Science as a subject has a mix of mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and hackers/programmers all under the same roof (and all for good reasons), which is why it's so hard to classify.

[Anonymous No.14757943]

>>14752289
Computer Science is a meme because it is a very popular STEM major that allows high-paying jobs in the engineering sector.

As a result, hundreds of millions of students get enrolled, virtually every university was forced at some point to provide people with a CS degree.
But when a field becomes severely popular, schools have two options:
1 - Only allow the top 0.01% by implementing extremely high requirements for enrolment in the major, but only top tier school use this solution, this is why softdevs of MIT will always shit on the average coder and often have history of successful personal projects before enrolling that graduates at average schools couldn't build on their own
2 - Like another anon said, water down the program and basically turn it into software developer training

Most schools go for the 2nd option, and this is very much visible when looking at the curriculums of the majors.
For example, I study in Switzerland at EPFL, here undegrad CS students are forced to go through 3 semesters of Analysis, 2 of discrete maths and information theory, 2 of algebra, 2 semesters of classical physics (soon implementing quantum physics too due to the quantum computing hype), digital design classes, classes on the mathematical theory of computing, probabilities and stats and a bunch of other theory courses. The actual programming bits are less than 30% of the curriculum even if you try to avoid all math classes.

On the other hand, I found a curriculum in CS in a no name university, again in Switzerland, and like 70% of the classes were literally focused on some language / framework and nothing else, you had classes dedicated to python and c++, no hardware classes, no physics, and a couple of discrete math classes (barely any calculus).

Only good schools preserved the true core of computer science which really should be renamed computing science, and the rest is basically just code monkey training under the guise of a mathematical degree.

[Anonymous No.14757966]

>>14757943
>soon implementing quantum physics too due to the quantum computing hype
this is a meme response. quantum computing is fine, but it's neither matured or integrated enough into computing alongside the classical paradigm to be a standard part of curriculum. there is a modicum of truth in your statement, but it's mostly wrapped up in posturing.

Every CS program in the US "keeps" its bad students to some extent, because the demand from the software industry provides steadily high numbers for undergrad major enrollment. But this is largely *not* to the detriment of good students. Universities hire CS PhD's to do core STEM research, and these people teach upper div and grad classes on their related topics. It's simply acknowledging that:
>we can filter everyone out, make way less money, and teach only the classes that are worth it
>orrr we can spend a bit more on TAs and prof teaching rates, score a fuckton of money for the department, AND still teach the proper classes for the 10% of great CS students

[Anonymous No.14757990]

>>14757862
This and only this, motherfucker took classes on databases and ditched anything that had something to do with computability, and now acts all high and mighty.

Although I very much wish that one day, the difference between software development degrees and computer science degrees will be made clear to everyone, but for now, we need to go through the slander of failed EE and ME shitters who switched to CS knowing they would take the easy way out and then look down upon us for it lmfao.

[Anonymous No.14758273]

>>14757901
Yoh are a retarded code monkey who paid tens or hundreds of thousands to go to some shitty private school to learn how to program in python instead of just getting a scholarship at a public school and getting paid to learn. Your discipline is literally just applied electrical engineering, so stop having such an unwarranted condescending attitude.

[Anonymous No.14758324]

>>14758273
kek. seething EE and private school reject

[Anonymous No.14758330]

>>14756582
No, physics is a natural science, not a sub field of math.

[Anonymous No.14758341]

>>14758273
the absolute state of failed EEs

[Anonymous No.14758345]

>>14752289
https://discord com/invite/beTwDNgv2P

[Anonymous No.14758984]

>>14758273
>paid tens or hundreds of thousands to go to some shitty private school to learn how
pretty sure UCB, UMich, Georgia tech, UMD, UIUC, etc.. are all public and within the top 20
>to program in python
really showing off how shitty the program at your alma mater was lmfao. reminder that this anon dropped circuits ii and basic linear systems / sigproc to coast while writing python apps
>Your discipline is literally just applied electrical engineering
Nah. All the EE's I've seen try to take grad algo for their research had to drop for remedial work in basic algo because they didn't have any analogue (kek) for analysis of algorithms / generating functions, actually applying FFT to problems other than basic sigproc (like efficient polynomial multiplication), or really being able to come up with any algorithm that isn't just mashing 2 freshman sort algos together.
Hell, even in the classes where there ought to be overlap like computer vision, EE's struggled hard both conceptually and to implement it in a large coding / hardware project. How embarrassing that EE's struggled with STEREO vision of all things!
CS and EE intersect, but CS hasn't been reducible to EE since like the 80s onward.
>so stop having such an unwarranted condescending attitude
"reeee stop realizing that muh CS shitty is really just a personal story of how much of a retard I am!"
"only i'm allowed to be condescending!"

[Anonymous No.14759481]

>>14756582
Physics studies the natural world and explains how it works. Computer Science in essence is the study of computation and it's applications to engineering and in some cases naturalistic phenomena. It doesn't really have the same ontological priors regarding the external world that physics does. The field is also founded on ideas that are not empirically falsifiable and not very physical in nature.

[Anonymous No.14759486]

>>14752289
This map undersells a lot of topics on the left hand side while omitting a lot more. Meanwhile, it has almost an entire side dedicated to software bullshit that isn't really about CS. The fact that "architecture" occupies a tiny corner of the map despite being at least as varied and complicated as the theory section (as shitty as this map's version of theory is) speaks volumes to how little people actually know about what CS is.

[Anonymous No.14759500]

>>14756614
nope, I went to the best public school in my region

>>14757862
>>14757990

yeah no, I was required to take data structures, algorithms and complexity, theory of computation, and cryptography which were all challenging classes, but definitely no where near as difficult as most of my EE classes.

also lol at mentioning databases. good computer science take a theoretical approach to that with the study of set theory, relational algebra, relational calculus, etc...

>>14757901
my school wasn't shitty, it was the number 1 ranked school in the region.

everyone who has studied both will agree that EE is harder than CS. it doesn't matter what school you go to.

[Anonymous No.14759502]

>>14759500
>good computer science
good computer science programs*

[Anonymous No.14759506]

someone please post that meme that says computer science is for retards who can't handle engineering

[Anonymous No.14759508]

>>14759500
>it was the number 1 ranked school in the region.
mean number 1 ranked public school

[Anonymous No.14759516]

damn this board has changed a lot. 2 years ago everyone would've agreed that computer science is the STEM major for retards. no one would've tried to argue that CS is more difficult than EE or ME lmao...

I guess we have a lot more zoomers posting here who feel like they're smart because they graduated with a CS degree

[Anonymous No.14759517]

>>14758341
that's not the same guy you were replying to

this board needs IDs.

[Anonymous No.14759585]

>>14759500
>data structures, algorithms and complexity, theory of computation
this is first and second year CS
>cryptography
this is a second year electiv
>nowhere near as difficult
I've TA'd in both the EE and CS departments for EE, CS, math, physics, etc. majors and some grads. As far as reported difficulty of material + grades, there's little difference between EE and CS when it comes to perceived difficulty (fairly difficult) and grades (usually around a C/C- for undergrad classes, around a B for grad classes).
Those computer vision and algo examples I gave? Those are from my own experiences. I have similar experiences for classes I've taken but haven't TA'd for (RF, nanophotonics, comm systems) in grad school

[Anonymous No.14759594]

>>14752289
A calculator is a computer.
Microscope science falls in the field of optics or optical sciences.

[Anonymous No.14759617]

>>14759516
no, about 2 years ago, everyone would have agreed that this topic is retarded because math and physics are the only really difficult majors. EE's are retards who need tables to understand basic calculus, and CS is retarded because of muh code.
In truth, no undergrad major is hard and you're coping hard.

[Anonymous No.14759634]

>>14759500
>data structures, algorithms and complexity, theory of computation
you literally learn this in first and second years max, these are NOT graduate courses and not even advanced undergrad courses
>cryptography
this can pass depending on the material covered

Personally I've seen the EEs act all high and mighty when taking CS grad classes as electives and they always shit the bed, I've seen them enroll in AI because they had a class on machine learning, and then drop it when asked to write code for a sudoku solver, meanwhile all of their faculty's classes are accessible to CS here and I literally learned all the shit they learn minus the wireless and antenna stuff so I could switch major and get enrolled in quantum engineering.

I could also be dishonest and tell you that your degree boils down to: signals and systems and sigproc which are both retarded, electronics/analogue and digital designs which any CS can do and are often forced to learn anyway, and electromagnetism theory which is the only remotely challenging topic, and even then, physics for engineers is always watered down.
All of these are very accessible classes overall to anyone in CS willing to study the subject, and pretty much carried my GPA in undergrad especially the signal shit.

While my experience is anecdotal, it proves to me that this board is full of shit sometimes, and very insecure as they will spend more time arguing over CS rather than discussing their own interests in STEM.

[Anonymous No.14759714]

>>14759634
lmao 90% of students in the CS department are complete retards when it comes to EE/physics.
Had to teach them basic linear circuit analysis + digital systems and after 6 classes they still couldn't grasp the concept of ground.
And don't get me started how I had to teach them transistors.

>ok anon this is an npn BJT there is no current flow through the base and no voltage drop from base to emitter
>Yup this is just a resistor if there is a voltage drop from base to emitter
They struggeled to undestand this watered down concept while I tried not to burst out in laughter as I had to teach them in this way.

They all passed the class because at least they understood simple boolean algebra and basic automata theory.

[Anonymous No.14759725]

Nobody who studied CS would argue its more difficult than EE. It's a degree mill for software industry. >>14752725

That being said EE fags are seething itt for no reason.

[Anonymous No.14759754]

>>14752305
are you sure? i do distributed computing and it’s kinda hard.

[Anonymous No.14759785]

>>14759725
nah, it's pretty evident if you go to a good program that the difficulty of both is comparable, but both are pretty easy at the baseline.
>>EE
circuits (basic ODEs), linear systems and signals (basic Z-transforms/ basic PDEs), basic probability, DLD, Comms/RF (pretty tough), basic electromag, electronics
You'll notice that most of it is just basic DE's. Engineering DE's aren't hard in undergrad because they don't teach you analysis.
>CS
Data structures and intro algorithms (basic combinatorics), intro discrete (intro to proofs), basic probability, advanced algorithms and analysis(combinatorics, gen. func analysis, which is a lot of series calculus and some ODEs), signals, computer architecture + OS design, basic automata (piss easy), complexity theory (pretty tough), and then electives
Combinatorics is to CS what DE's is to EE. It's not easier because combinatorics is fuckhard, but counting seems more approachable if you don't know what the fuck you're doing. The difficulty of a CS degree mostly comes down to the electives you take - doing upper div advanced algo or ML theory will easy spiral you into analysis, abstract algebra, DE's, etc.

I've omitted most common background classes like linear algebra. The gist is that EE and CS are probably comparably difficult as subjects, but EE, as an engineering major, has little elective freedom + certification requirements, so the baseline EE degree is somewhat difficult. Meanwhile CS lets you choose whether you want to coast or if you want to go ham. I don't think it's fair to call it easy when you have anons like >>14759634 and >>14758984 clearly take the good stuff and see how people, both in and out of CS, struggle with the material.

[Anonymous No.14759793]

>>14759714
>after 6 classes
I'm willing to bet this story is really "i had a couple of kids who were confused over material on a recitation quiz" more than "LOL BTFO CS NERDS." Basic doping / junctions for engineering isn't hard material, and I have a hard time believing that they passed digital logic + systems on boolean algebra and automata. Did it cover timing analysis, noise, high speed signaling, etc.? I keep reading your post and think it's fishier the more I read it. Again, I could see how a wheatstone bridge or thevenin could confuse somebody, but i don't see how this material integrates so much into boolean algebra and automata theory that they would have a passing grade. Either they understand I-V curves, flip-flops, and voltage-dividers, or they fail. FSMs and CNFs wouldn't be enough to save their grade.

[Anonymous No.14759862]

>>14759785
>advanced algorithms and analysis(combinatorics, gen. func analysis, which is a lot of series calculus and some ODEs), signals
yeah im gonna call you out on this bullshit. most undergrad CS program in the US don't teach signals or functional analysis lmao

[Anonymous No.14759877]

>>14759862
Because most undergrad CS programs are watered down due to the massive influx of students, it's the fault of unis, not the fault of the field itself.
People doing ML or data science without knowing about systems have no idea what they're doing, this is why, to this day, we have people talking about ML as this very new and innovative thing, when really if they sat down and took 1 (one) signal class only, they'd realize that feedback systems and gradient descent have been around for decades.

I wish they'd just introduce a software engineering degree so we'd get over with this shit, I love my field, it is challenging and fun, but yes it's filled with retards chasing the FAANG dream which is detrimental to the status of CS.

[Anonymous No.14759893]

>>14752289
You are confused by the word "science"

[Anonymous No.14759900]

>>14759793
Wheatstone bridge and thevenin wasn't even part of the class. Ofc it didn't cover timing analysis, noise, and high speed signaling.

>Either they understand I-V curves, flip-flops, and voltage-dividers, or they fail.

FSMs, Logic Gates, Boolean Algebra, Karnaugh, Multiplexer, Flip-Flops and simple circuit analysis (very simple resistance network with transistors = resistors/switches and a charging capacitor + max.1 voltage divider ) was enough to pass the course with a good grade.

[Anonymous No.14759929]

>>14759862
>>14759862
>most undergrad CS program in the US don't teach signals or functional analysis lmao
gen. func analysis != functional analysis
I was saying generating function analysis, which is analysis on infinite series whose coefficients are a sequence counting whatever you want to keep track of. You count steps to a computation or resources needed commonly with a generating function
>signals
Signals in the US is mostly elective, but it's not hard material. I do wish more CS programs made learning about low pass filters mandatory

[Anonymous No.14759931]

>>14759900
That's more a computer architecture and digital logic design class. Did you cover pipelining and hardware algorithms for multiplication?

[Anonymous No.14759932]

>>14759516
>2 years ago everyone would've agreed that computer science is the STEM major for retards
People understood that when Math or Chemistry Ph.D get paid as much as codemonkey juniors with CS bachelors, it turns out it's not the codemonkeys that are retards.
t. Was prepared to study chemistry since school until I've learned that even working with Pajeets without the degree gets me 1.5x salary of most chemists. Still mad over it.

[Anonymous No.14759933]

>>14752289
>>14752757
Yes, computational or computing science.

[Anonymous No.14759934]

>>14759932
>caring about money

[Anonymous No.14759939]

>>14759862
Anon…
“gen. func. analysis” clearly refers to generating function analysis and not general functional analysis, whatever that might mean.
Generating functions are fundamental in CS.
https://aofa.cs.princeton.edu/30gf/

[Anonymous No.14759942]

>>14759900
>Karnaugh

Tfw people barely understand K-maps, while some low tier Discrete Maths book in Russia had at least couple other methods of minimizing normal forms (Quine-McCluskey method and picrelated)

[Anonymous No.14759952]

>>14759877
>Because most undergrad CS programs are watered down due to the massive influx of students, it's the fault of unis, not the fault of the field itself.
Most undergrad CS programs are watered down due to the demands from business, that's why subjects get dilluted either with 50 shades of programming on different platforms, some sysadmin BS, web programming and, worse of it all, economics and business management.
Which takes a lot of time off the CS itself.

And worst part of it all is that you can't just delegate the code-monkey stuff for two reasons:
a) Business is not interested in that, because fancy degrees sell better to the client.
b) There already is oversaturation of market by infogypsies who manage to provide even more shit than your average CS degree.

[Anonymous No.14759956]

>>14759934
If you don't care about money that much, send it to me, you commie faggot.

[Anonymous No.14759960]

>>14759931
It was the basic EE class every CS student had to take at my university. Computer architecture is a separate course.

Hell I was kind of happy that they had to take one basic circuits class at all. There was talk at my university to make the first part of course optional .

[Anonymous No.14760514]

>>14759934
People who recognize the monetary gain from the degree might not always max out academic credentials, but the best among the software engineers-to-be are certainly not stupid. Many working CS grads are the type that work at NASA as OS engineers or at national labs as roboticists. It’s just that they’re heavily outnumbered by codemonkeys from mediocre schools.

[Anonymous No.14760521]

>CS BSc holder
20% chance of being based, 80% of being cringe
>CS PhD holder
100% chance of being based
Judge not by the codemonkeys but by the actual computer scientists.

[Anonymous No.14760522]

>>14752289
calculators are computers and microscopes are optics

[Anonymous No.14760538]

>>14752725
at the end of the day you learn about computers architecture components and programming, math is only used to implement software

[Anonymous No.14760605]

>>14760538
literally untrue.
math underlies a lot of CS. It's impossible to build computers these days without algorithms, and a lot of these are classic combinatorial optimization problems (e.g. the physical layout on a chip is always put together by a program after the formal specification of its components are their resources are modeled)/. Major architectural decisions are crafted with algorithms or by handmade hardware accelerator designs...which often involves math to even go about designing. It's hard to build an AI/ML accelerator without understanding tensor algebra.
>and programming
>math is only used to implement software
if you learn about programming and claim that math is used for software, where's the conflict?

Your post doesn't make sense unless you're talking about the pipeline of undergrads who use college to work at a job where they'll never use any of the above. Those people aren't doing CS in their career, ever. At best, they're code monkeys that the CS department makes money off of.

[Anonymous No.14760618]

I was CE in undergrad, interested in high speed IC stuff, but I ended up getting enrolled in a CS PhD where my focus is split between computational electrodynamics (makes a lot of sense for high speed IC problems) and computational imaging (signals are deep magic) because my (then potential) advisor was housed in the CS department. My perspective is that the CS department does house a lot of retards in their undergrad because of the money, but there are always like ~5%-10% of the student body that's smart and gonna do well no matter if they do industry or academia. My PhD student peers in the CS department all seem like they're from this ilk, and it's not uncommon to see them dive into EE/math/physics problems when they intersect with the field. They're of course great at their own subject too.

The CS undergrad major isn't gonna do you any favors if you don't take good electives at a good school or if you go to a bad school, but the former is more than manageable for a lot of people. The CE major is pretty good, but I don't think it's really a replacement for the CS curriculum. Based on ISCA and MICRO attendances, the people working on architecture / hardware are hard split between CS and CE, so I don't think being in either major really locks you out of interesting work in that sphere. And good CS programs push out great CS students, so it's not shit everywhere

TL;DR the CS undergrad curriculum needs work but the small 10% of good CS majors are /sci/core and shouldn't be bullied so hard. Really EE's and CE's do it because they resent the amount of money and instant credibility they get.

[Anonymous No.14760633]

>>14760521
i know 10 years old kids that have more in depth knowledge about any computing/hardware aspect than most of PHD holders, many of them cant even assemble a simple tower, cant write a functional program, cant solve system related problems, basically useless at any way you look at it.
each time i need to interview someone with a PHD, instead of asking them questions about binary trees and such, i present them with situations that require practical knowledge to solve, and guess what only 2 out of 10 made it.
all their projects are uni assignments which are worthless and uncreative, they struggle to explain simple concepts in their own words, they cling to definitions they read in some book, and almost all of them are incompetence in abstractical thinking.
ן really dont know why it is like this, but they cant really benefit anyone with the knowledge they gained in the academy

[Anonymous No.14760637]

>>14760521
i know 10 years old kids that have more in depth knowledge about any computing/hardware aspect than most of PHD holders, many of them cant even assemble a simple tower, cant write a functional program, cant solve system related problems, basically useless at any way you look at it.
each time i need to interview someone with a PHD, instead of asking them questions about binary trees and such, i present them with situations that require practical knowledge to solve, and guess what only 2 out of 10 made it.
all their projects are uni assignments which are worthless and uncreative, they struggle to explain simple concepts in their own words, they cling to definitions they read in some book, and almost all of them are incompetence in abstractical thinking.
really dont know why it is like this, but they cant really benefit anyone with the knowledge they gained in the academy

[Anonymous No.14760638]

>>14752289
>Is there a field of study called "calculator science" or "microscope science"?
It should probably be called computation science, to be honest. Or computational math or some shit like that.
>>14752305
>computer science, supposedly, is a branch of mathematics
It is.
>in reality it's just retarded code monkeys who can't do basic calculus.
Yeah, most actual CS work/study is this, you're really not wrong at all-but the subject itself is actually the math and algorithms behind it all.
>>14752309
This guy put it well.
My CS bachelor's was actually much more on the math side, which I enjoyed. However, I had no idea how to do a lot of the software monkey (e.g. I had no idea how to make a WebSocket or API, or how to set up a Docker Image or use GitHub properly, but I can do fucking chromatic polynomials and seven thousand types of graph traversal algorithms) shit that is expected of CS grads-had to pick that up myself (online courses).

[Anonymous No.14760660]

>>14760605
just read the syllabus instead of talking nonsense

[Anonymous No.14760680]

>>14760637
>muh school of HARD KNOCKS
anon I can feel the LARP off of you so hard. PhD holders in theoretical CS are in the minority - most of them are systems people who have written functional (and soon standard) software packages and libraries.
Even the theory people generally have lots of practical implementation experience from their projects + grad internships.
>abstractical thinking
>knowledge gained in the academy
you really aren't hiding the fact that you're a LARPing retard with a chip on his shoulder.
I've met no CS PhD holder who has occupied any role less than post-doc, professor, R&D engineer, or SWEIII. Hell, the last one was a guy who had 2 years of industry experience, did a PhD with a dissertation network routing, and is now principal engineer at a defense company.

[Anonymous No.14760699]

>>14760638
>Yeah, most actual CS work/study is this
No, code monkey work is like this. Computer science, which includes academic work but also industrial projects in robotic motion planning and swarm robotics, real time systems, cryptosystems, streaming algorithms and sketching, exascale computational modeling, etc., is not really like this at all.
It's important to have practical experience using software tools and making your own shit, but academics do this all the time. Academics will push out their own Docker images for simulations because nobody likes writing programs on windows - this is common for big microarchitecture conferences. People have to make practical demos in grad school all the time, and there's a big demand to have it be accessible, functional, and maintainable by time of publication.

[Anonymous No.14760716]

>>14760637
>I present them with situations that require practical knowledge to solve
I guarantee you that you don't hit them with actual practical knowledge and just ask them some common google-able, trivially picked up knowledge for the sake of a "gotcha!" moment. I legit don't think you'd ever ask them about how to write the code to avoid priority inversion in threads, how to protect memory when context switching, or how to obfuscate cryptographic operations from memory and timing attacks. I think the type of shit you'd throw at them is tantamount to "durrr reproduce boiler plate socket code or else u dumb."

[Anonymous No.14760742]

>>14760680
>larper
ok blame me with what you are
>PhD holders in theoretical CS are in the minority
you are aware that TCS is just a part of the PHD program right?
>people who have written functional (and soon standard) software packages and libraries.
>guy who had 2 years of industry experience, did a PhD with a dissertation network routing,
be specific what modules/protocols they developed?

[Anonymous No.14760789]

>>14760660
>t. rote-learning midwit

[Anonymous No.14760797]

>>14760716
>how to protect memory when context switching, or how to obfuscate cryptographic operations from memory and timing attacks
lamo what the fuck are you talking about
i ask them really basic stuff, like describe me the difference between a compiler and interpreter, or what is the fastest memory unit in the computer.
if someone tell me about some "super project" that he did like encrypted search engine, i ask him what a database is...
to be honest you sound like them, puking overcomplicated terminology like you even have any idea what it means.

[Anonymous No.14760869]

>>14760742
>you are aware that TCS is just a part of the PHD program right?
you are aware that I was talking about topic/concentration right?
>be specific what modules/protocols they developed?
I'm not going to doxx my friend with telling you the libraries. But as is standard with ICCCN acceptances, he had a full implementation up by conference time which has been built upon and adopted into standard within the last ~2 years.
>>14760797
>the difference between a compiler and interpreter
this is "practical" in the sense that knowing how tell left from right is practical - it's common knowledge known to everyone who's done more than a semester of CS.
>fastest memory
everyone knows what a register is, and if they didn't answer register, they most certainly answered one of the L caches
>encrypted search engine
nobody rolls their own
>overcomplicated terminology
...such as?

m8 it sounds like you're interviewing bad recent graduates from undergrad, not a fuckin PhD

[Anonymous No.14760903]

>>14760797
holy mother of LARP, you're not even trying to be a good liar.
either that, or the PhDs you interview are from mid-tier schools at the very best.

[Anonymous No.14760908]

>>14760869
>this is "practical" in the sense that knowing how tell left from right is practical
well they dont even get throw this, yeh most of them say L1 instead of register which is disgrace
>such as
you said something about "obfuscate cryptographic operations from memory and timing attacks" which are speculative memory attacks like specter, why the fuck do you even mention that? this is a advanced data security stuff i bet you dont understand anything about it.
>not a fuckin PhD
they are PHD unfortunately

[Anonymous No.14760911]

>>14760903
I don't think he's interviewing PhD's. It sounds like he's overfitting horror stories from bad undergrads to PhD candidates / reporting boomer horror stories that are largely fabricated or exaggerated. There are PhD's that can't maintain a large codebase, but they're not that common in the CS department.
High artifact evaluation standards (literally a panel of reviewers who run your code and grade it by maintainability, ease of use, correctness, reproducibility, etc.) are a large part of systems papers, and systems CS people are the majority of computer scientists. Even theorists / applied people in CS have software packages which demonstrate their ideas and run on standard machines.

I'm convinced that "PhD's can't code" is now perpetuated as a mantra to protect hire-ability and to deflect from the realization that their work can easily be done. Non specialty software engineers really are tradesmen but much shittier at their job, huh?

[Anonymous No.14760915]

>>14760618
as this anon said, CS purely revolves around the electives you take. Since CS is a super broad field that is applicable to literally every single industry that currently exists, you can get your degrees with honors by doing jack shit and only enrolling in piss easy programming courses, or you can get your degree by going through all the combinatorics, optimizations, complexity theory, coding theory, abstract algebra and number theory, went through a bunch of distributed and concurrent algo shit ultimately to get an above average grade that no one will be impressed by, even though you're objectively more valuable as a computer scientist.

This is why Software engineering degrees should be a standard thing across all unis, the 10% of /sci/core as this anon said shouldn't get shit on like that, and some anons like >>14759634, >>14758984 and >>14759785 definitely know their stuff and yet here they are arguing against a wall.

[Anonymous No.14760923]

>>14760908
Most of them saying L1 is fine. Obviously register is the correct answer, but saying L1 means they have locality in mind, which is what the question is really about. The questions of speed will mostly be policy handled by your language unless you're doing the assembly yourself
> "obfuscate cryptographic operations from memory and timing attacks" which are speculative memory attacks like specter, why the fuck do you even mention that?
...because it's a standard concern of the field? Using variable time operations can give away what the program is doing, so you have to structure everything to give away nothing about how the code is executing. same for the size of the program. you have to defend against people who are scrutinizing the machine with valgrind and
>i bet you dont understand anything about it.
I was hired for and worked for a while in this field, so yes I understand it.
>they are PHD unfortunately
they are not unfortunately, and your story is clearly fabricated

[Anonymous No.14760963]

>>14760923
>Most of them saying L1 is fine
if someone use it as an answer thats a big no no for working with me, this is a perfect indication for defective understanding
>I was hired for and worked for a while in this field, so yes I understand it.
doubt
>.because it's a standard concern of the field?
only manufactures who develop hardware and firmware are concern about this and its only a fraction of programmers and engineers, that has nothing to do with 99% of the industry
>your story is clearly fabricated
im sorry anon this is the sad truth, they just dont know anything outside the academic bubble

[Anonymous No.14760980]

>>14760963
>only manufactures who develop hardware and firmware are concern about this and its only a fraction of programmers and engineers,
Lol you don’t know what you’re talking about. You’ve never worked with air gapped systems or HSMs.
Everything in your post points you toward being a shitposter, most likely an insecure codemonkey

[Anonymous No.14760992]

>>14760963
>registers vs L1 cache for speed: this is a perfect indication for defective understanding
>only manufactures who develop hardware and firmware are concern about this and its only a fraction of programmers and engineers, that has nothing to do with 99% of the industry
>>>>>>>practical questions
You are wearing clown makeup.

[Anonymous No.14761060]

i studied CS at oxford, we had courses on category theory, quantum information, loads on mathematical logic, and so on. lots of PLT too
i know people who did a CS undergrad at oxford and are doing postgrad in maths departments (typically in logic - altho CS departments seem to be the most fruitful places these days for logic anyway)

[Anonymous No.14761067]

>>14761060
I know a dude who did CS undergrad who got into a great math PhD program for combinatorics and complex analysis as his main interests. He had to self study ring theory but otherwise knew enough to score ~68th percentile on the math GRE, which was enough to get attention from his reach schools.

[Anonymous No.14761091]

>>14760980
we dont talk about the network vector at all, we talk about vulnerabilities like specter and meltdown which are addressed at the hardware level, and dont tell me that you wrote a patch to those system you sound like a retarded fuck who barley understand the basics

[Anonymous No.14761096]

>>14761091
>you sound like a retarded fuck who barley understand the basics
you sound jealous ;)

[Anonymous No.14761136]

>>14761096
ok, explain to me how this work what specter dose how it access the memory and fetch the data stream

[Anonymous No.14761202]

>>14761136
Spectre is a family of related vulnerabilities, all of which that have been documented extensively and reported on in casual media extensively. I could mention that you can estimate which OOO instruction branch the processor goes on, and you can do similarly with the cache, and then the effect of a wrong prediction leaves cache lines with sensitive data as a side effect. I could even provide multiple examples. But the issue is that this isn’t an interview and anybody can read the Wikipedia.
Exactly how is your question one about comprehension? If I explain the timing attack, all I demonstrate is that I’ve read the paper.

[Anonymous No.14761223]

>>14760699
Yeah okay, I guess what I meant was most of what people call computer science is code monkey work. People do throw it around a bit haphazardly, in my country at least.

I totally agree with you though man, CS is very broad and very much not webdev or whatever shit job agencies here think it is. I do a weird mix of robotics, cryptography, and AI work myself (freelance researcher).

[Anonymous No.14761237]

>>14761202
>Exactly how is your question one about comprehension?
im just wasting your time because you waste my.

[Anonymous No.14761250]

>>14752289
any chance you have your pic rel but in english?

[Anonymous No.14761303]

>>14761237
>i was only pretending
lol. lmao

[Anonymous No.14761351]

>>14752289
A much better name would be turing machine science

[Anonymous No.14761366]

>>14761303
ok L1 cache is the fastest memory unit on the computer, and you hardcoded firmware for HSMs devices from this point you can shitpost to another anon or to yourself im off

[Anonymous No.14761592]

>>14761366
>L1 cache is the fastest memory unit on the computer
nobody said this. everyone said "this is a stupid gotcha, registers are obviously the fastest, but this isn't 'practical' in the sense that you're boasting."
>he doesn't believe the HSM firmware
it honestly sounds like you're salty at PhD's and want to take it out on someone

Because from my perspective, it's
>ok PhD's can't tell an interpreter from a compiler and they can't answer what a database is
And apparently, I'm the one in la la land.

[Anonymous No.14761593]

>>14761351
turing machines are just one of many a model of computation, they are not fundamental (like computation itself is)
the two names for the discipline i'm okay with are 'computing' and 'informatics', used officially by imperial college london and the university of edinburgh, respectively. the former places computation (process) as primitive while the
former places information (substance) as primitive. the relative merits of thus philosophical, but nevertheless the name denotes something fundamental, not constructed

[Anonymous No.14762078]

ITT EE cope

[Anonymous No.14762351]

What does /g/ think of data scientists?

[Anonymous No.14762360]

>>14762351
/sci/ *

[Anonymous No.14762631]

>>14762360
they don't

[Anonymous No.14763134]

>>14752305
Doesn't a computer science degree require you to take Calculus I and II?

[Anonymous No.14763150]

>>14763134
Actually you're supposed to go up to calc III in engineerig schools as its a prerequisite to electromagnetism theory

[Anonymous No.14763984]

>>14763134
yes, and quite a few programs either encourage you to take calc iii or teach you the material through the relevant courses. It's weird because calc iii is generally useful in various parts of applied CS.

[Anonymous No.14764349]

>>14763134
>>14763150
>>14763984
The reason they don't formally teach calculus iii is that the classic presentation is geared towards electromag theory (green's theorem, div, curl, etc..).
However, the parts of "calc iii" that are *immediately* relevant are more related to (real) analysis in several variables and linear algebra. Pic related is from a standard upper div intro ML theory book.

This is the whole thing of anons saying that CS isn't an easier subject inherently. Material like this does come from the CS depts, but they don't force you to do it, so many CS undergrads who just wanna codemonkey will not take these classes.

[Anonymous No.14764497]

Computer Science is the source of a lot of interesting problems (like picrel) that most on this board will ignore out of a weird solidarity against computers or a chip on their shoulder against brainlet programmers.
Seriously, what is with the resentment of CS on this board?

[Anonymous No.14765056]

>>14764497
Following up on this, a simple computing problem like this is related to an entire body of literature on dynamical systems
http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/tanner/Prospects2010/CUlcigraiTalk.pdf
But I feel like computing doesn't get the same love (here) because it's treated like codemonkeying rather than the study of...computing.
It seems much better in the real world, but even then normies just think CS is about programming.

[Anonymous No.14765077]

>>14764497
Following up on this, a simple computing problem like this is related to an entire body of literature on dynamical systems
http://people.maths.ox.ac.uk/tanner/Prospects2010/CUlcigraiTalk.pdf
But I feel like computing doesn't get the same love (here) because it's treated like codemonkeying rather than the study of...computing.
It seems much better in the real world, but even then normies just think CS is about programming.

[Anonymous No.14765111]

>>14763134
This is the math I have to take for my BS-CS program. (Normal state university)

[Anonymous No.14765190]

>>14765111
seems pretty standard. my program was the same, with more offerings / recommended based on what track you do. My academic advisor said that taking combinatorics, upper div linear alg, and abstract algebra was a good idea if I wanted to do grad school.
Our discrete structures is cross listed with intro to proofs in the math department, so abstract algebra and analysis were accessible to us.

[Anonymous No.14765222]

>>14763134
>Doesn't a computer science degree require you to take Calculus I and II?

ABET accredited schools always require Calc I and II.

[Anonymous No.14765952]

>>14765111
I suggest you take abstract algebra and combinatorics.
Don't you have theory of information too?
I had two mandatory semesters of combinatorics and information theory, and one mandatory on abstract algebra.
With my electives (set theory, mathematical logic and all theory of computation stuff) added to it and the fact that we're not taught calc 1-3 but analysis 1-4, I pretty much did a lightweight math degree when I think about it.

[Anonymous No.14766075]

>>14765952
It's also important to balance it out with engineering oriented classes and stuff inbetween. Graphics processing, ML techniques, OS design, robotics, computer vision, etc. are all interesting and important electives as well.

[Anonymous No.14766315]

>>14752289
>>14752305
It wasn't always like this. CS in my uni used to have obligatory calculus, discrete math and linear algebra. Now it's no longer obligatory and it was replaced by oop and other specific coding shit like databases, cybersec, etc.
You can still take these classes if you want

[Anonymous No.14766406]

>>14766315
It's basically all optional. The smart kids still take the good classes.
Unfortunately this doesn't appease shitposters and insecure engineering students.

[Anonymous No.14767642]

>>14761250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzJ46YA_RaA

[Anonymous No.14767792]

>>14767642
bad video btw

[Anonymous No.14767818]

>>14767792
Got any better mapping of CS? (even if it isn't a video)

[Anonymous No.14768141]

>>14752289
It should be computer engineering

[Anonymous No.14768212]

>>14768141
computer engineering is a meme where you get stuck designing caches or boring accelerators for a career.

[Anonymous No.14768233]

>>14764497
it’s mainly traditional engineers (like me) seething that they went through a similarly difficult program to make 50% less

[Anonymous No.14768340]

>>14768233
Is it really just money

[Anonymous No.14768713]

>>14768233
You should ask them to break down their pay by RSU and bonuses. It's honestly not that much once you take into account that RSUs are funny money subject to market whims and most software engineering grads don't make six digits right out of school.

[Anonymous No.14768904]

Most of the people that work in this field are into practical application of the science.
It's like any other form of engineering , people face the theory during their education years, but then they are only interested in the practical side of things.
The science part belongs to the old crusty teachers and other people that don't work in the private industry and don't have strict deadlines.
So yeah, maybe engineering is best describing it ?

[Anonymous No.14769050]

>>14752309
>thinking -opy is a suffix that implies scientific field

[Anonymous No.14769372]

>>14768904
>The science part belongs to the old crusty teachers and other people that don't work in the private industry and don't have strict deadlines.
If you want to learn programming you can just go to a bootcamp or watch a video course. It's not my fault you don't like or want to learn about computer science.

[Anonymous No.14770632]

>>14767818
honestly? not one that's been formalized like this. The problem is that people making these types of videos are either always academics on the outside of CS (i.e. this one) or they're software people trying to make sense of a subject they don't really have much understanding of.
This is why CS has this perpetual "it's the science of coding" reputation - zoomers will watch people on youtube or tiktok talk about CS on these terms.

There are a few exceptions. There's a channel called Reducible who uses the interesting classic engineering problems in CS to give a presentation that's both accurate to the subject but accessible. I think he uses 3b1b's animation software too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0me3guauqOU&ab_channel=Reducible

[Anonymous No.14771044]

>>14752289
Calculators are a form of computers, and Microscopy is a thing.

[Anonymous No.14771458]

>>14770632
>This is why CS has this perpetual "it's the science of coding" reputation - zoomers will watch people on youtube or tiktok talk about CS on these terms.
I really hate what this degree has become. I took really fucking hard electives to get my paper, but at the end of the day, so did the idiot who took the bare minimum.

[Anonymous No.14771591]

>>14768233
tbf i think we're overpayed, and i suspect the avg salary will drop in the future

[Anonymous No.14772659]

>>14769372
yes, most people want to do programming - practical, and not the theory, because all you need to do is already in some library or done by another guy
I've actually graduated CS and did a lot of math which i'm not particulary fond of , although i admit it's important in some specialized applications.
Vast majority of people who graduates CS becomes what ? programmers

[Anonymous No.14772703]

>>14760638
>Or computational math or some shit like that
Already exists.
https://reg.msu.edu/academicprograms/ProgramDetail.aspx?Program=3756

[Anonymous No.14773547]

>>14772659
practical work and theory are not mutually exclusive. it's very common in fields like robotics, cryptography, streaming algorithms, etc

[Anonymous No.14773607]

>>14752875
>“Science” seems to imply seeking speculative knowledge of that which we don’t fully comprehend.
Which is what computer science is. Questions like:
>What is the fastest algorithm for multiplying two n digit numbers?
absolutely lie within the domain of science.
>How can we pursue knowledge of a tool we invented?
Computer science is the study of abstract computers. We didn't invent computers in the abstract, Brains are computers and we didn't invent them. The universe can be thought of as a very specialized computer that computes its own future state given its present state.

>What we don’t know is how to solve particular problems
We don't

[Anonymous No.14773613]

>>14759942
What russian book?

[Anonymous No.14773665]

>>14756365
opposite experience for me
I found CS to be more difficult than upper level EE and math classes
Then again I had to take those classes with very limited programming experience. I guess time consuming is the better way of describing it.

[Anonymous No.14773669]

>>14752875
>“Science” seems to imply seeking speculative knowledge of that which we don’t fully comprehend. How can we pursue knowledge of a tool we invented?
This is like saying that astronomy isn't science because we invented telescopes. Computation is a phenomenon of the digital computers we created, which is why there's always talk in the background of the universality of computational models, of actual physical limits of computation in general, of how computations fits in with mathematical platonicism, with the fundamental characteristics of complexity classes.

Complexity classes in particular are interesting, because despite "depending" on a specific model of machine when you start out, but you quickly find that these definitions and results hold when you change the nature of the machine. There is an actual phenomenon of computation that exists outside of the machines we built. It's not just "device science." It's computational science. I am arguing we've created a beast greater than our initial conception.

[Anonymous No.14773678]

>>14752725
wrong, it uses every aspect of the scientific method. t least it did when I was in uni

[Anonymous No.14773709]

I came here to see 1 gif /sci/ and you failed me.

in all seriousness though, I vote we change the name to Computing Science.
It fits so well it's lead me to believe that the original name "computer science" had more to do with the secondary definition of computer (that is the act of calculating numbers and NOT the desktop/laptop personal computer) The more commonly used meaning of computer (as in PC) doesn't have a verb such as "computing" so the name's less confusing. That is unless kids want to try to invent one in order to be trendy like they do with "adulting" Maybe one day "Macbooking" will become a popular new verb among the zoomers, and it'll get easily confused with "Macbook Science" which is actually the science of squishing hamburgers inside very thick college books.

[Anonymous No.14774485]

>>14761366
you are a clown

[Anonymous No.14774545]

>>14773709
I wish it was called computing science

[Anonymous No.14774571]

>>14752289
Literally zero posters in this thread had watched the first 5 minutes of Abelson's SICP lecture where he specifically explains what CS is. Speaks volumes about you motherfuckers.

[Anonymous No.14774691]

>>14774571
everyone has watched the SICP lecture
reposting the gif for the 1000000th time is not funny

[Anonymous No.14775031]

>>14774571
Anon, what's the source of that gif with the vn text on the bottom?

[Anonymous No.14775061]

Don't be so hung up on words. Words get used to manipulate people. E.g. The department of defense, formerly the department of war.
The question isn't "why is it called computer science", the question is "What is computer science"

[Anonymous No.14775080]

>>14775061
>don't get hung up on words
>immediately goes on to demonstrate why you should get "hung up" on them

[Anonymous No.14776449]

>>14752289
> Is there a field of study called "calculator science"
Yes, it's called "computer science"
>"microscope science"
Microscopy.

[Anonymous No.14776764]

>>14776449
computer science is not calculator science.
that's like saying mathematics is pencil science

[Anonymous No.14777517]

>>14773709
>>14774571
>hurr guys funny MIT man crosses out words
>hurr guys the solution is p = 0 or n = 1
these are not funny jokes

[Anonymous No.14779344]

>>14772703
No this is more of a program to learn how to do FEM and numerics with computers. Computation studied mathematically would be heavier work in complexity theory (separations, novel reductions, block sensitivity, analysis of Boolean functions), advanced combinatorial algorithms, probabilistic algorithms, more automata models (aka just abstract algebra), logic (type theories, proof systems, finite model theory, descriptive complexity), etc..

[Anonymous No.14779355]

In my view, computer scientists have been deep into combinatorics from the start in the same way physicists have been deep into differential equations / related analysis. Combinatorics is one of the most notoriously difficult and salt-inducing areas of mathematics.

So the hate towards CS doesn’t make sense to me since computer scientists have tangibly contributed to math. They’ve also made contributions to other areas of math as well in the last 20 years, and given this board’s hard on for pure math, you’d think more of them would be excited by this.

[Anonymous No.14779361]

>>14752875
computer science graduates should be forced to produce their own silicon then, or at least their own novel logic gates and switches. it only makes sense, if they engineer those machines then they should be able to make them.

instead both the scientist, the programmer, the computer scientist and the engineer buy a computing device from the market and trust it. on a micromachine level you have no idea what the fuck is going on and where your information is going.
you just plug shit together and watch the binary if anything.
how many of you enjoy LED keyboards? you just failed post-CS EMSEC.

[Anonymous No.14779368]

>>14759785
it sounds like the line between computer science, electrical engineering, and math, is pretty blurry. does the board have a hierarchy of math, of a body of knowledge of math that simply includes the EE and CS math?

[Anonymous No.14779381]

>>14760911
>Non specialty software engineers really are tradesmen but much shittier at their job, huh?
you can always go full 1970:
just literally draw the fucking control logic, then pay some guy in India $50 to write it onto a PLC for you. even a businessman can build a robot if he had to, so the real question here is how much bandwidth do you want from your system, how much precision and accuracy, and what moves do you want it to make with the data? the type of work where you would honestly need all of the skills that this thread talks about, the whole thing from top to bottom, would be building a visualizer based computing system.
>but of course XViS isn't real.
pleasant dreams anons ;)

[Anonymous No.14779731]

>>14779368
yes the line is pretty blurry, especially near the big intersections. CS and EE meet very naturally at information theory, signals (and thus computer vision), etc.. as well as many other areas. CS and math have natural intersections literally everywhere (logic, analysis, combinatorics, etc..). Math and EE have natural connections in information theory as well. You could argue that many areas of math show up in EE, but I'd argue that this is less an EE/math specific relationship and more about how math is the natural language of physics (simple examples like phasors and complex analysis come to mind).
>does the board have a hierarchy of math, of a body of knowledge of math that simply includes the EE and CS math?
no

[Anonymous No.14780794]

>>14760915
Bait or retarded?

[Anonymous No.14781829]

>>14752289
mad how every computer scientist agrees that the name is shit, many suggesting the alternatives 'computing' or 'informatics' (former placing process as fundamental, latter substance; difference is purely philosophical), yet computer science is still used

[Anonymous No.14782376]

>>14781829
despite being a shitty name, the phrase "computer science" is sticky.
most researchers I know just say they're in computing or CS. somehow, I feel like "CS" works better than "computer science" despite being an acronym for it.

[Anonymous No.14782386]

Geometry means Earth measuring.