> My physics prof believes that going to school for computer science is like going to school to learn all how a shovel works, while other majors (like physics) just learn how to use the shovel in order to accomplish their goals.
And this is how labs end up with terrible code that doesn't follow any best practices and is completely unmaintainable.
If scientists weren't so arrogant, they might realize that if we're spending years studying something it might be a bit more complex than a shovel.
> If scientists weren't so arrogant, they might realize that if we're spending years studying something it might be a bit more complex than a shovel.
If some programmers weren't so arrogant, they might realize that terrible code that doesn't follow any best practices and is completely unmaintainable solves a lot of day-to-day problems in many many fields/businesses.
The beauty of programming and the spread of knowledge today is that you absolutely need not be an expert to make something that works and automates real work in the real world, every day.
Again, "some programmers" (not all) seem to be overzealous in defending some kind of exclusive right to develop software the right way, as opposed to the wrong amateur way.
This irks me a little bit, not meant to be a caustic comment =) sorry if it sounds a bit like one.
I think you're getting angry about something I never said.
I'm well aware that terrible code solves many problems out there. Yes, it's great that people are able to use code to solve problems without being experts. It's also true that their code could be even better if they learned a bit more.
Just because people can do the basic level of something (it's great that they can!) doesn't mean the field is easy or useless. It's especially irksome that the primary reason physicists can hack together dirty scripts easily is thanks to the pioneering work of actual computer scientists.
> Just because people can do the basic level of something [...] doesn't mean the field is easy or useless.
Actually, the shovel analogy is quite accurate after tweaking a little.
"Just because people can do the basic level of digging holes in ground doesn't
mean the field is easy or useless".
Operating an overgrown shovel called "excavator" is not an easy task and
requires plenty of training to do it well, yet it's but a tool. And we would
still need all the knowledge from civil engineering (totally separate field,
though "engineering", not "science") to make any substantially larger or
deeper hole in the ground.
All this doesn't make digging holes useful on its own.
It helps to sometimes look from this angle at programming and computer
science.
And this is how labs end up with terrible code that doesn't follow any best practices and is completely unmaintainable.
If scientists weren't so arrogant, they might realize that if we're spending years studying something it might be a bit more complex than a shovel.