Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development "Programming languages are living phenomena: They're born, the lucky ones that don't die in infancy live sometimes long, fruitful lives, and then inevitably enter a period of decline. Unlike real life, the decline can last many, many years as the presence of large legacy codebases means practiced hands must tend the code for decades. The more popular the language once was, the longer this period of decline will be."
Thread beginning with comment 548852
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by RareBreed
by moondevil on Tue 15th Jan 2013 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by RareBreed"
moondevil
Member since:
2005-07-08

I share the same opinion, although I do like multi-paradigm languages.

I loathe the way some developers seem to try to bend a given language to use it in ever conceivable scenario.

Don't mix Software Engineering with CS names. My university degree when I took it, was called Software Engineering in my mother language, but the actual contents were what is known as CS in other countries.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed
by hhas on Tue 15th Jan 2013 14:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by RareBreed"
hhas Member since:
2006-11-28

Don't mix Software Engineering with CS names.


I'm absolutely for the existence Software Engineering courses; after all, there's a huge need in today's world for applied software engineers, and plenty folks who desire such jobs. I just hate it when such courses call themselves 'Computer Science' [1] when the curriculum clearly is not.

Personally I think a big heaping dose of honesty is needed from universities... and from students too. Everyone's perfectly happy to distinguish between, say, Applied and Theoretical Physics, so why conflate Applied and Theoretical Computing? The only reason I can think of is ego marketing: students want to be software engineers but call themselves 'computer scientists' because that sounds cleverer.

And so everyone forgets what CS actually is and what it's meant to do: push the boundaries and [re]define the state of the art. Just as in the sciences, you need a vibrant theoretical community generating new ideas and improvements that can eventually feed into the applied world, otherwise the latter grows close-minded and stagnant. It's not healthy, but I suspect a lot in the programming world isn't what it ought to be.


[1] Which should probably be called 'Computer Math', but that's a separate gripe.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by RareBreed
by Delgarde on Tue 15th Jan 2013 20:44 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

"Don't mix Software Engineering with CS names.


I'm absolutely for the existence Software Engineering courses; after all, there's a huge need in today's world for applied software engineers, and plenty folks who desire such jobs. I just hate it when such courses call themselves 'Computer Science' [1] when the curriculum clearly is not.
"

Eh, the line is somewhat blurry. Most CS degrees increasingly include a lot of practical stuff, while CE also covers theory. Not worth making a fuss over, I think.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by RareBreed
by kwan_e on Tue 15th Jan 2013 23:53 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by RareBreed"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Everyone's perfectly happy to distinguish between, say, Applied and Theoretical Physics, so why conflate Applied and Theoretical Computing?


That is because the boundary between Applied and Theoretical Computing is blurred.

"If I apply this patch, this should theoretically work"

Reply Parent Score: 3