Talk:Computer science

Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

Opener

I inserted the opener below, so we may make some comments about it more easily.

• Computer science, an academic discipline (abbreviated CS or compsci), is a body of knowledge generally about computer hardware, software, computation and its theory.

I have a more POV version that I'll set aside; I agree to this version as more neutral to the points various wikipedians made. — Dzonatas

• The discipline itself includes, but is not limited to, the fundamentals of computer languages, operating systems and mathematics in use by the computer.

This one is okay. I believe it could be expanded into 2 or three sentences to develop a more rounded opener. — Dzonatas

I think that the subdisciplines should appear in order of importance. Algorithms is more important in my view, that languages or operating systems. Also, I don't understand what in use by the computer means. Sbwoodside 05:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• The study of these fundamentals may lead to a wide variety of topics, such as algorithms, formal grammars, programming languages, program design, artificial intelligence and computer engineering.

The list of examples sounds too redundant at this point. Perhaps, we could breifly state how CS leads or has led to such topics. — Dzonatas

• Web developer, computer programmer, systems analyst, and computer scientist are a few potential computer science specific careers.

This is another list of examples, but something stated about careers was better than none stated. How much should we include about these careers? Is such content on the careers more appropriate in another article by its title? — Dzonatas

I humbly ask for a consensus with commentary here. The suggestions and comments given above may actually guide us for significant article-body content. — Dzonatas 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some constructive comments:

• Computer science has less to do with computer hardware than astronomy with telescopes. The computer science curriculum at my university (in the Netherlands) only has one course on hardware. And even that treats it from a software perspective. For example, we studied the effect of CPU caches on algorithms, but not how CPU caches are constructed hardware wise. What you refereing to is computer engineering.

Please, don't make that assumption so fast. I understand the part of hardware that is computer engineering as regards to electronics and material production. There is the other part that is all within the realm of CS under computability. Circuit design, which is considered hardware, is a subject taught under CS, but it doesn't involve any electronic knowledge. A study of circuit material production techniques is not CS. Circuit design is a heavy study of basic logic components. Other than simulators, it doesn't involve the subjects of software. This is just one example. — Dzonatas

• I think we should drop the second sentance, as operating systems are not such a 'hot topic' anymore. The third sentence is adequate, but can be expanded a bit.
• I don't think the careers belong in the introduction.

Drop OSs -- instead, what if we could point out transitional fundamentals between modern careers and academia, which would be hot topics. What I'm after is "what do people do with CS" besides just study it. — Dzonatas

• The introduction should mention a bitt about the history, how computer science originated from mathematics, took on more engineering aspects and eventualy spawned new fields such as software engineering, artificial intelligence and information science (and in that proces returned a bit to it's mathematical roots).

—R. Koot 04:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with R. Koot on his point about about careers. I would not include history in the first paragraph summary.

Also I still think it is a more useful use of time at this point to add content to the article as opposed to dickering with the summary. Sbwoodside 05:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay -- careers are not as important, as the transitional fundamentals I noted above, that lead to those careers. I agree that history should be minimized in the opener. To even state that "it originates from math..." just opens up a can of endless worms; such statements needs to be explained first before stated. Hence, give something any reader can agree with first. — Dzonatas 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

history of computer science

A new article, since history of computing didn't cover the right topic. I've written tons of content there already, but it's definitely not finished... since it ends with Turing right now ;-) Anyway, the material here on academics needs to be added to that, and then a summary for here compiled from that article, or whatever. That's my suggestion anyway. Sbwoodside 07:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)