In both cases, it isn't done to trust the theoreticians with power tools: or hold the guys in the shop responsible for the deep magic, either.
In both cases, it isn't done to trust the theoreticians with power tools: or hold the guys in the shop responsible for the deep magic, either.
Alogrithms, & data structures are one of the obvious fully shared concerns between CS and SE.
Also, as a software practitioner, I can give you multiple examples of reaching into CS research and then directly appying it to code. A favorite ~recent example was discovering "Power of Two Choices" (for bins and balls) a few years ago, and then, that very day, doing a prototype of a cache using that approach. I seriously doubt a Mechanical Engineers would have the same experience with ~contemporary fundamental physics theoretical papers.
I don’t mean that as an insult, at all, just a recognition that as a field, CS is maybe 75 years old.
I wouldn't take it as an insult, if I were a CS worker, however. That just means that the Gausses, Euclids, etc. of this field have yet to appear. All the warts of this field aside, it does offer a chance for making a dent in history. Something the young workers in the field may want to keep in mind ..
Comparing it to fundamental physics is like comparing it to abstract math — in which case the relationship is still the same:
Physicists building the LHC pushed engineering forward.
Math researchers have substantially pushed numerical computing forward.
It's merely that, to pick some famous names: what leslie lamport or simon peyton-jones or donald knuth do with their daily professional lives and output has a passing similarity with what titus winters or linus torvalds or raymond chen or .. have, but not much more than that. And both groups know stuff the the other one does not.