Computerists | Hacker News Reader

Computerists

blog.fogus.me

61 pointsoskarth62 comments

There's the old quote attributed to Djikstra:

Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.

But who cares about titles, really? Why do they matter?

The article makes the claim that you can tell someone's not a scientist if they have 'scientist' in their title. I'd argue for a corollary: you can tell someone probably doesn't deserve their title if they spend any significant amount of time worrying about it.

As someone who has just moved to the US and been through the "joy" of looking for work; me.

I'm a server admin, I have come to realize that what I do can be titled many different things. System admin / engineer, network admin / engineer, server admin / engineer, windows / linux admin / engineer..... and more.

I dearly wish there was just one title for my job.

Systems Engineer, note the plural on "systems." Don't shy away from this, it's a title that has existed for decades and you're in good company. Resist title inflation!

But in many industries, defense and aerospace in particular, systems engineers are people who integrate multiple technologies to build systems (such as an aircraft or missile). They don't manage computer systems.

This confusion has been a major annoyance to me, since I spent several years as a classical systems engineer. To make matters worse, I actually wrote code in those roles (C, Fortran, and Matlab) and was at one point a real-time embedded software engineer in all but title.

Are we talking about those industries? It's a valid title for many sectors, and is perfectly cromulent for OS/Neteng roles.

well, when you're searching tech job boards, it sure matters. As (another) Systems Engineer (in the sense of Von Bertalanffy not Von Neumann), searching for relevant jobs is a _huge_ annoyance. I've given up on titles, and search for, or look at, job descriptions, filtering mentally the various keywords that are positive and negative indicators for what I do (feedback controls, operations research, etc.).

That goes for all of my job hunts too, but it doesn't mean I'm not whatever a simplified title of my skills implies.

I don't know why not, especially since they also employ many software engineers and IT people.

The article's point has little to do with titles. It's about the scientific method and the lack of its existence in programming circles. The bit about titles is called an introduction.

> But who cares about titles, really? Why do they matter?

I'm pretty sure that was the point. The term physicist doesn't make a physicist a physicist.

> Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.

I prefer:

Computer science is no more about computers than thermodynamics is about engines.

Comment: In English there is a split between Software Engineering and Computer Science. German uses the word Informatik which comprises both disciplines.

It's the same for most of continental Europe.

There is theory and research focused areas like computing or computational mathematics, and there is application, informatics (more similar to a CS degree) or informatics engineering (roughly an EECS degree, or a CS&SE with more math, physics and electronics).

PS: In the US, the term "informatics" seems to be more related to the "soft"(design and business) parts of european informatics, like IT, Information Systems and Human-Computer Interaction.

PS2: In regard to the professional title, in Spain the people that study informatics are generally called "informaticians" ("informáticos" in spanish). But as with "computer scientist", people just use their job title as their professional title.

With the notable exception of "bioinformatics", which is fairly maths intensive.

right, I should have used "area" instead of "term". I meant the bachelors/masters/PhDs in "Informatics".

lol yeah, but you could make such assumptions (who calls himself a scientist isn't one) in german too :D

Biologen Mediziner Chemiker Mathematiker Informatiker

Wirtschaftswisseschaftler Kulturwissenschaftler Medienwissenschaftler etc.

;)

I didn't made any assumptions about that :p

Computer Science is an example of a formal science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_science

Or, in parts, an applied science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science

Computer Science is alchemy. In a five or a thousand years, someone will come along and say, OH! we should think about it like this. Then the problems we deal with will change.

Yes. I haven't seen a professional programmer who calls herself a computer scientist. I think the author is beating a straw man.

And theoretical computer science is a branch of mathematics. It's as much science as math is.

Neat, but

he clearly has never debugged COM bordello on Windows, because one simply cannot do it without "deciding to stop goofing off and starting applying the scientific method". To figure out what the heck 0x8C123456 for an error code means and what triggers it, you make conjectures, run experiments, go for repeatable results across multiple testbeds and frequently solicit peer review of the results. "Not a scientist"? Ha!

Not that particular software no, but I'm used my share of dreck. Maybe I guessed where the problem was and used experimentation to validate, but I would hardly call that the scientific method.

Programmers do you an abbreviated form of the scientific when debugging. Its that we wear many hats actually. But whatever, its not a big deal for those in industry.

For those of us doing academic research, however, the science part of computer science is much more an issue; e.g. should a conference accept design papers without empirical evidence?

It was a joke, dude.

Computer science and software engineering are different things. Computer science is a specialised subset of mathematics, software engineering is the process of making things that run on computers. They're connected in the same way that civil engineering and physics are- one underpins the other, and maybe in time what the physicists are doing will help make a good bridge. Science underpins engineering, engineering justifies science.

What's in a name...

99% of what is called Computer Science is more engineering based on the 1% actually expanding the knowledge and making Elsevier richer.... (or not based on science and just reinventing the wheel over and over again as aptly noted by fogus).

I personally like the title "IT guy" as it pretty sums up what the rest of the world thinks of it all.

Countries with the word 'democratic' in them:

- People's Democratic Republic of Algeria

- Congo, Democratic Republic of the

- East Timor – Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste

- Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

- Korea, North – Democratic People's Republic of Korea

- Laos – Lao People's Democratic Republic

- Nepal – Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal

- São Tomé and Príncipe – Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe

- Sri Lanka – Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

I don't know the details of the political situation in those countries, but my hunch is that they are less likely to be democratic than your average country.

Is there a name for this phenomena?

Doublethink? Orwell's Ministry of Peace/Love/Plenty.

Well come on, why not consider context? There is no objective meaning of "democratic" outside of the ideal that no country satisfies, so what we can conclude is that in just about all cases it's to differentiate the governments from their predecessors. It just sounds a little out of place because no country called themselves anything like "The Glorious Dictatorship of Central Africa," or, "Plundered Colony of France, Southeast Asia."

> There is no objective meaning of "democratic" outside of the ideal that no country satisfies, so what we can conclude is that in just about all cases it's to differentiate the governments from their predecessors.

Oh come on, you can generalize that argument to practically anything. No real world examples live up to their platonic ideals so who cares if you call a duck a horse, it's just to differentiate it from a different species of duck.

> "Plundered Colony of France, Southeast Asia."

I like it.

you can generalize that argument to practically anything

Maybe, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm arguing for an implied "More-" before "democratic." That's what I mean by context.

Several of the listed countries aren't democratic in any sense of the word. Even with context the argument is still absurd -- we intend to communicate meaning with the words we use, and the introductory paragraph in the OP and the comment you replied to both highlight cases where what a word means and how its use are unrelated.

The sense with which you hear the word and the way the citizens hear it may be different.

I think we call this phenomenon "marketing."

I was going to go with Post Hoc Naming, because the choice of name invites the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy [1]: "Oh, they must be a democratic nation, because it's in their name."

Alternatively, "Me Too" Naming.

[1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/post-hoc/

You forgot the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), better known as the "good" (north) Korea.

How about Computer Plumber, Network Plumber, System Plumber, Data Plumber?

An apprenticeship and licensing system would surely solve a large number of problems (while creating a much smaller number of new problems). I'm sure the computerist's union would be an absolute joy to deal with (sarcasm), no doubt making every other skilled trades union look like civilized extroverted yes men in relative comparison.

The existence of trained plumbers does not mean no civil engineers are educated, or no environmental scientists exist.

We already have something like union rules so that wouldn't be much of a change. I got yelled at for moving a monitor across a cube without having a A+ cert. I'm like, dude, I have a CCNP, I build my own ham radio gear and microcontroller stuff at home, I've been building computers since that meant hand soldering S100 boards, and I've been doing this stuff since before you were born (literally). Oh OK then I won't write you up ... this time, but don't do it again (WTF?)

Don't disagree with what you said.

Maybe I didn't put it clear. But I wasn't referring to apprenticeship, trade union or anything relevant to them, I was simply joking about the "plumbing" factor of any computer-related jobs/roles, the majority of them are as boring as "plumbing".

I agree about the unsuitability of terms like "computer science". I'm a professor of computer science. I'd rather be a "professor of informatics", but C.S. is the term we're stuck with. And after all, it isn't really that bad; the main downside is that people I meet at parties think my job is teaching people to use MS-Word. (I used to be a professor of mathematics; the misconceptions about that one are scary.)

In any case, I'd like to point out that this use of "science", while not in accord with the most common usage of the term, is not actually dishonest. Rather, it harkens back to an older use of "science" as a more general term for knowledge related to some field of study.[1]

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science - see English noun definitions 1 & 2.

I've worked in roles which were titled "technologist". I think it was the most correct position name I've had.

On a related note, I was thrilled when Craigstlist opened up an "Internet Engineers" job section. I think that is a great title.

A lot of trained computer scientists work primarily as engineers. Sometimes engineers do science. Sometimes scientists do engineering. In my experience it's not clear cut.

Depending on the sub field of CS, some academics do mostly engineering stuff with (hopefully) rigorous evaluations of their work, while others (HCI in particular) do a lot of formal science.

Outside of a handful places (like MSR and similar) people with computer science training generally don't participate in the production of new knowledge within the framework of the scientific method. But usually they could, if needed.

Compared to what physicISTs, biologISTs, or these scientISTs practice, computer scientists are more likely to be mathmatICIANs and logiICIANs, right? So "Computericians" might be a better title for them.

Also we have the word "Hacker", which is a marvelous invention, and which make these scientists that deal with computers sound so different. Though sometime it's hard to draw the line between what we call "computer scientists" and "programmers" when we use "hacker", but "hacker" is initially been employed as a term for academes, and what's more, we like it, right?

Personally, even though I have a BS in Physics, have done research for 4 years, and develop software exclusively with astrophysics experiments at a physics lab (I'm even on the most cited astronomy paper of 2012)... I have a hard time calling myself a physicist, or even an engineer for that matter.

Calling myself a "computerist" or even a "computer scientist" would feel a lot like I'd be furthering the dilution of titles with the inclusion of mediocrity, akin to the "technical support engineer".

It's worth noting that "computer" used to be a job title itself, before mechanical computers replaced human computers.

Now that a computer is a machine that executes sets of instructions issued to it by humans, I think "Computer Programmer" is a perfectly descriptive job title for any human that authors those sets of instructions.

Whether or not a computer programmer is also a scientist is more a function of their training than their job title/description.

In the purist sense of a "scientist" I have to agree there is not much observation -> Feedback -> progress happening. But what about some of the research in the universities?

It is worth mentioning what Richard Feynman thought about "Computer Science" - He said it was never a science but an aspect of engineering:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL4wg6ZAFIM

> some of the research in the universities

Some of that for sure could and should be called science. However, most of the research being done is not actually pure research either but rather problem solving. (and sometimes not even solving per se)

In my university, they had computer science (which was basically maths that became algorithms), software engineering (which many people think is computer science), and computer applications, which was what some people call "informatics".

Computer science is an overused term for something that is closer to maths but thought to be closer to engineering.

We also had a computer engineering dept which mostly consisted of sticking 7400 series TTL chips in breadboards, later VHDL/Verilog. Basically the EE curriculum with more computer topic classes and less analog/RF classes.

And like the rest of the engineering dept there was "real" (aka theoretical) and "technology" (applied) degrees. One of my degrees is a AS in EE-T although I went right into computers for the BSCS (with the idea of getting into embedded using the AS-EET as leverage, which I have never managed to do, LOL)

Hopefully someone has already said this:

Computer science is about research in the theory of computation. When you do your CS degree it is designed with you becoming a researcher/hacker.

Software engineering is about the practical application of that theory executed in a disciplined way.

No need for new titles!

As the article suggests, science is a methodology, not a field of study. You can apply scientific reasoning to computers as well as anything else that is sufficiently stable to be studied.

So computer scientist makes some sens... Computerist? I am not sure.

I think my title would fit better if it was "Error Scientist."

All of my best hypothesis crafting, experiment design, and data analysis seems to be done in the name of figuring out why my code is broken.

I use "Beep Boop" as my umbrella term

It's particularly good as an initial answer to "what do you do", especially accompanied by a hunt-and-peck typing pantomime.

Most people who get a BS in biology end up becoming scientific biologists, though they might apply things that they've learned about biology in more practitioner type careers. Most people who get a BS in computer science don't go on to be "computer scientists", though they hopefully apply things they've learned in practitioner type careers. Of course people without serious research oriented training/education/focus aren't going to be professional scientists.

Most people who define themselves as having a BS in bio (as opposed to it merely being a stepping stone) work as lab techs ranging from $10/hr pharmacy techs up to maybe $25/hr at a med testing lab in an expensive cost of living area. At least in the old days. Currently, probably near half end up as waitresses and bartenders, completely out of the field.

Most people who get a BS in computer science (not as a stepping stone to a PHD or whatever, etc) end up on helpdesks, maybe pulling cable or replacing mice, not doing anything scientific. Basically like the bio lab techs, it amounts to training not education. The top 25% or so, maybe less, might get software dev jobs or maybe system/network admin jobs. Even in current conditions, most will end up in their field, maybe $8/hr no benes at a call center but at least more or less in their field. The HN crowd tends a bit toward the upper level of the pack, so yes, most HN readers have it far better than median.

>Most people who get a BS in computer science (not as a stepping stone to a PHD or whatever, etc) end up on helpdesks, maybe pulling cable or replacing mice...

I'm gonna need to see some evidence to back that up before I believe it. Based on the experiences of everyone I know with a CS degree, that is completely wrong.

Are you confusing CS with CIS?

>maybe $8/hr no benes at a call center but at least more or less in their field.

I made more than $8 an hour at my first retail job. If you have a CS degree and you're making $8 an hour, something is very wrong.

I tried googling around and cannot find any direct evidence. I will say there is a feast/famine effect and right now in the hot areas looks better than I've seen since the late 90s.

> late 90s

Ahh, that explains it.

I know a fair number of people with a wide range of CS-type BS degrees from vocational schools up to top tier universities. None of them are working "$8/hr no benes" jobs. It sounds like you're just being unnecessarily pessimistic.

Here's an article that lists the average starting salary with a CS degree as $56K ( http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/04/12/college-de... ) And another that lists CS major unemployment at 4.3%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materials_science

We can call ourselves "algorithmists."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com