>there's "computer scientists" today who can't even code in C
>>53568367
>computer scientists
>code monkeys
They are glorified math majors
>>53568367
CS isn't even about programming
most CS students are complete shit at it desu
>>53568387
Most computer scientists don't know what a galois field is so they are definitely not math guys
>>53568367
>>53568387
>>53568388
>>53568604
If CS is a maths degree, what are the job prospects?
I mean pure sciences have pretty shit job prospects if you're not into teaching
>>53568652
>implying applied mathematicians don't know about galois fields
>>53568388
>>53568767
But you should still know your tools
>>53568367
CS people can think of how a program should work. but cant actually make it. they know theory. not actual doing
>>53569294
Talk about being useless
Its like knowing exactly how to dig a hole, but neither the tools to dig it, nor the skills. Just the theory.
I have no respect for any CS grad who cannot program, I mean what the fuck, what good will proving how a program runs on paper do? Mathematical equations don't make money or are useful, their implementations are
>>53568387
>They are glorified math majors
Literally the only idiots that think this are CS majors that are bad at math. Most other STEM majors have way more math than CS.
>>53570373
Depends. Many minor in math, and those courses will be way more rigorous than engineering math, for instance.
>>53570395
>posts math books that have little relevance to CS except for niche topics
I agree with the sentiment though.
>>53570395
what crappy uni did you visit?
>>53570656
What non-trivial math did you learn at your uni?
>pic unrelated as it is essentially middle school tier
>>53570687
Computational theory, differential equations, higher-order logic, linear algebra, ...
>>53568367
>says "code" unironically
>doesn't know the difference between CM (code monkeying) and CS (computer science)
>want to doom programmers to the cancer that is C
lel
>>53568652
Research my man. It's also possible to fork into statistics, operational research, statistical mechanics and quantum physics with the right courses. The main "real CS" paths are complexity theory, cryptography, machine learning and other AI tracks, numerical disciplines, and computational science disciplines.
>>53570687
>>pic unrelated as it is essentially middle school tier
what the fuck. that's one of my reference textbook in uni. what's uni tier then?
>>53570687
tCS 1 and 2, mathstat, real analysis 1 and 2, ring theory, stochastic algorithms (from math dept), optimization 1 and 2.
>>53568367
>there is scientists
Found the retard.
>>53570939
The only prerequisite for the book is 8th grade algebra. It says so right in the preface:
http://www2.fiit.stuba.sk/~kvasnicka/Mathematics%20for%20Informatics/Rosen_Discrete_Mathematics_and_Its_Applications_7th_Edition.pdf
>>53571021
> the truth about CS
top kek
>>53571021
I laughed.
>mfw there are actually people who believe this
>no face
>>53571046
>CS majors actually believe they are hot shit
It would be funny if it wasn't so sad
>>53570931
/thread
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes."
>>53571021
>does a bachelor degree in some shitty community college
>surprised he's surrounded by retards
>>53571127
There's also a double-standard here: math students are even more retarded. I have seen 3rd year math students who don't know what a log is (but I've never heard of anyone past 1st year CS who didn't know what a log was). Math students are proud of admitting they cheat on easy tests. Math students don't comprehend inequalities at all (real analysis 1: TA does a proof and ends up with X < Y, math student asks "I found Y > X is this OK???", in math stat, the professor knows that CS students tend to always have good grades compared to math students, it was one of the hardest undergrad math classes from the math department in my college according to mathfags, yet it was really easy compared to half my CS classes (the other half being codemonkey shit)).
>>53570656
>ad hominem
>>53571127
>ad hominem
Yeah, just keep listening to your echo chamber that says CS is great. No one else knows what they are talking about.
>>53571225
You call that bait, are you new?
>>53571264
Go be butthurt somewhere else, double-digit IQtard
Then I've fallen and can't get up. I want to program and create but I've chosen a CS major. What do?
>>53571328
Bump
>>53571248
That's not really ad hominem.
It's simply arguing that you can't judge CS by your own personal experience in a single college, that possibly is third-rate.
>>53570395
You should have went to applied mathematics, not CS
>>53570744
>higher-order logic
You played around with logical quantifiers. Trivial.
>diff eq
Engineers do only the easy parts of them. Those are also the most useful parts, but that's not advanced math anyway.
>computational theory
Too broad. If all you took was an intro course it wqs probably pretty trivial.
>linear algebra
First courses are pretty simple. How proof heavy was yours?
>...
Hopefully you had stochastic processes, combinatorics (not just a few chapters from Rosen), numerical analysis, abstract algebra, signal processing and lots more
>>53570989
>real analysis
What book did you use? Was it proper analysis or calculus?
>mathstat
Did you do any proofs? If not, it wasn't mathematical statistics but applied statistics
>>53571393
Just look at every top school in CS and you'll see that they are all shit like that.
>>53571483
You take electives. The listed courses are bare minimum ones.
>>53571464
>applied mathematics
Not pure enough
>>53571495
>le not autist enough xD
>>53571495
Don't feel like logging into VPN to check the full article but it's possible his title is somewhat misleading without context.
>>53571478
>You played around with logical quantifiers. Trivial.
Fuck you, it had some of the trickiest proofs
>Too broad. If all you took was an intro course it wqs probably pretty trivial.
I had several courses about it, hardest was about computational complexity theory, most failed because of that couse.
>Engineers do only the easy parts of them.
That's relevant how?
>How proof heavy was yours?
Very
>Hopefully you had stochastic processes, combinatorics (not just a few chapters from Rosen), numerical analysis, abstract algebra, signal processing
Yeah, but I never struggled with them
>>53571493
>You take electives
Most kids are out to take the easiest electives they can.
>The listed courses are bare minimum ones
You clearly haven't seen the current CS requirements schools have. They've been completely gutted and don't even require the bare minimum anymore. At Brown, they don't require algorithm design or architecture let alone the theory of computation, OS, compilers, programming languages, or any other fundamental stuff.
All a CS degree guarantees is that you've done Java 101. This is why 99.5% of CS kids can't even solve fizzbuzz.
>>53568367
>there's architects today who don't use staedtler pencils
That's how dumb you sound OP.
Languages are a tool, nothing else.
>>53571483
I don't think I ever saw a school that required only a discrete math intro
>>53571610
>Fuck you, it had some of the trickiest proofs
0. Unpack the definition
1. Follow your nose
10. Proved
>>53571629
But a java 101 class will teach you fizzbuzz more than a compiler class will.
>>53571654
Thank you, with your helpful guide proving NP=P will be absolutely trivial!
Million dollars here I come!
>>53571636
Many shitty schools stretch out Rosen into 2 semesters. Beyond that, the only requirements are high school calculus and matrix algebra.
>>53570687
If put in the same context as physics and math students? None of my maths were non-trivial.
If put in the same context as engineering students? My math was on the same level, excet they had vector calculus while we had discrete math.
Pure math fags and physicists can shit on my math classes (they usually have bigger problems in their life, like getting a job if they were mediocre) but I'll be damned if engineer fags try doing the same.
>>53571683
>doesn't know the difference between a qualified logic expression and a complexity class
>>53571683
Did you prove P = NP in your course?
>>53571722
>doesn't understand that the difference is completely irrelevant for the argument
>>53571710
>thinks the highest math an engineer does is vector calculus
>thinks undergrad physics majors do more math than engineers
kek
>>53571723
we did do that famous wrong proof of p=np
>>53571723
N=1
>>53571723
>CS majors think they are assigned P=NP as homowork questions
>>53571635
Not OP, and I see what you're saying, however I think the key difference here is "can't" vs "don't".
>there's architects today who don't use staedtler pencils
>there's architects today who can't use staedtler pencils
I think OP is saying that computer science degrees are less rooted in mathematics similar to a more pure academic degree (and thus pushing the field further as a whole) and are more akin to a technical degree that is advanced job training focusing on enterprise language usage rather than a low level language that incorporates hardware and the computer as a whole.
>thinks the highest math an engineer does is vector calculus
Where did I say this? I said that vector calculus is the only mandatory math class I didn't share with engineering majors, not that it's the most complex math class they take.
You should at least get some elementary school level reading comprehension before shitposting about math.
>thinks undergrad physics majors do more math than engineers
They pretty much share like 70% of their classes with the pure math majors at least at my uni.
>>53571892
>I said that vector calculus is the only mandatory math class I didn't share with engineering majors
Oh, and how did you do partial differential equations, Fourier transforms, probability, and complex analysis without vector calculus?
>study SE
>had to do shit in Ada, Java, C++, MIPS assembly, Scheme, and Haskell but never C
>>53571877
Your description of CS is what Software Engineering is. I have no idea what kind of uni would CS as a major where you learn java and stuff about making enterprise software.
A technical oriented degree to teach people methods to make good software and how to work in development teams.
C is a very basic language you get boggled down with things like handling memory and the lack of some very basic libraries.
Let's say you're in a typical CS intro course and you're learning about finite state automata.
You get a lab assignment about making a program that will be able to generate finite state automata out of inputted regular expressions.
If you decide to solve this in C you'll spend 70% of your time making some very basic libraries like sets, hash tables, implementing sorting algorithms, dealing with pointers and memory... basically dealing with technicalities that are not relevant to the subject at hand.
If you decide to solve this in Python you can litterally focus entirely on the problems of finite state automata, you'll be finished more quickly and you'll get code that represents the problem much more clearly.
C has its importance in education though. In my uni the intro programming course was in C. C was also the language used during my compilers class. It's still stupid to insist that people should use C for everything they do because it's more low level.
>>53571954
>complex analysis
Was an elective class. I didn't take it because only EEs need it.
>Oh, and how did you do partial differential equations, Fourier transforms, probability
Some very basic vector calculus concepts were explained in the material.
The eng fags also got a very basic run through set theory and discrete maths which is also needed for probability.
For fourier transforms and signal processing we didn't generalize into the n-th dimension so no vector calculus was needed.
I've literally never learned a C-like language
closest I know is Java tbqhwyfamalam
Computer Scientists hate C. They love Lisp and Haskell and Scala.
>>53571478
>What book did you use?
Rudin's principles of analysis
>Was it proper analysis
Yes. It was entirely about proofs, and calculus 1 through 3 were prereqs.
>Did you do any proofs?
Yes. That's the whole point of mathstat as opposed to prob, stat, and other babby stat courses. Proof of convergence, proof of power, proof of bias, etc. of arbitrary distributions and distribution functions. To be clear, it's not a particularly hard course, but mathfags had a lot of trouble with it for some reason. The basic workflow is that you transform a distribution to a known distribution, then extract statistics (taking into account the transformation) and apply tests to prove or disprove properties of that distribution. It's about midway between calculus and analysis, I'd say. The transformation part is what you'd do in calculus to reach an easier-to-manipulate form, but it's harder because it's "freeform". The proving during exam is an easier form than in analysis because there are several obvious methods to try, but the methodology used is the same. Assignments were very interesting, though, because they required extra-disciplinary knowledge and skills to complete, there are many ways to complete any proof, and it's almost entirely freeform - I even used a proof from optimization theory that had nothing to do with statistics once, and another time I ended up repeating a proof from analysis.
>>53571954
I've never seen a CS major where PDE and math department probability aren't mandatory. For the record, I know some schools bundle stats and probs in the same class for CS majors, but it's not a reduced version of the course: it covers 100% of the stat and 100% of the prob courses math students take, except in half the total time, in my personal experience. I know because I took both the prob&stat and the probability courses because my research director insisted on this.
Fourier transforms are taught in a variety of CS classes. The same is true of vector calculus. Complex analysis, though, I've never seen. Probably the thing people understand least about CS is this: the list of math courses we take as mandatory doesn't describe all the math knowledge we obtain. Any truly-on-domain class will include complete segments of what would otherwise be taught in a math class on a specific topic. This means that a complete math class could be represented in the conjunction of 3 CS classes, except there is a lot of extra material in these 3 classes which wouldn't necessarily be relevant to math majors.
>>53572575
>I've never seen a CS major where PDE aren't mandatory
show me a school that requires PDEs
Math major here, don't know why the hate for CS, human-computer interaction and software development fellows are cool and got huge respect for finite model theory/automata/proof theory/ folks
>>53572023
I guess it's because feel more "scientific" if they use something that is so anal about memory management and everything.
If you just gave them a powerfull new language that is made for fast (and safe) deployment, it wouldn't look so scientific anymore.
But it always makes me smile when scientists tell me they can code because they wrote a 50 lines C programm with input-calulation-output (in a cryptic text file)..
>"As long as there were no machines, programming was no problem at all; when we had a few weak computers, programming became a mild problem, and now we have gigantic computers, programming has become an equally gigantic problem."
>Dijkstra, "The humble programmer", 1972
>>53572995
Except all computer scientists (i.e. not code monkeys) use python, R or matlab.
>>53573020
I've studied in a scientific field before changing into software development.
I've seen most scientist programm in C.
Sometimes (very few!) in python.
Matlab only for engineers, math or physics.
R only for high level statistics (researching in psychology or econimocs), never for students.
>>53571125
That quote's from Dijkstra right?
>>53573123
Lol. At least google around to make your lie more realistic.
>>53572801
it's some /sci/ meme
>>53573020
C++ is used a lot for data science.
MATLAB is only for engineers.
>>53568367
>there are c programmers who can't even program in assembly
>>53574924
C++ is barely used in data science, unlike python. Even java is more popular than C++.
Matlab is used by about 1/3 people for prototypes, about 1/3rd of these prototypes end up being "good enough" and never get reimplemented.
>>53572228
This. Go back to your EE and driver writing cave
>>53572228
No one loves Scala. It's the C++ of the JVM.
>"Dude computer science is so hard! We have to do so much math!"
>tfw it's only up to calc, ODEs, and probability
>aka sophmore baby math
wew lad
>>53571021
> 6th semester student did not know what a logarithm is
Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that one to be honest.
>>53575087
Tons of CS majors fail calculus
>>53575034
>>53575448
Tons of math majors fail calculus.
>>53576257
It's interesting that F# is so high. I understand rust (o murr gurrd iz mozilurr) and swift (apfail pls cum in my anus more!), but I would've expected C# to be much higher than F#.
>>53576257
We did it Rust
We finally became
True programmers
>>53570656
Caltech
>>53570744
Bro, it's just fucking numbers.
All these people getting wound up over different math levels.
If you are not a math major math is just a tool, why would you learn more than you need? Jesus fucking christ its like your entire self esteem is based on the math courses you took.
>>53577506
shh, they don't want to think about how they wasted their life on abstract shit without ever dabbling with applied mathematics.
>>53576257
c++ not visible
c not visible
asm not visible
fuck you
>>53568367
Please, even more worrying is that there are computer scientists who can't even write in one LISP dialect. Their inability to implement their own LISP dialect would have concerning enough, but the state we're in now is frankly rdiculous.
