Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Programming and Computer Science -- Why are They Different?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 NullPointerException

NullPointerException

  • Banned
  • 125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 29 November 2014 - 05:32 AM

http://codemanship.co.uk/parlezuml/blog/?postid=1109

 

What do you think? Frankly, no, CS is not the "most dull mathematical science". I think CS is too hard for some programmers, and sometimes computer scientists find (mostly unfamiliar) programming hard.



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,845 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:55 AM

Posted 29 November 2014 - 11:31 AM

The dividing line is the old and familiar  "hardware and software" fence.  Science is the electronics of a digital device and programming assumes a set beginning point of operation for said hardware.  The two must mesh together or nothing works.  Programing is based in the mathematics of multiple numbering schemes and formulas to create repeatable sequences within that hardware.  My experience began with the electronics and only learned programming to test my hardware.  At that time, programming was done by punch cards and the computer was vacuum tube based.  Logic chips began as discrete gates and has accelerated to todays state where a single chip can hold up to 4 Billion transistor junctions.  Programming has become more and more dependant upon complex operating systems just to launch compilers and initial data base loads.  Most service techs have just enough system training to test the hardware and little else.  Some service centers use canned diagnostic programs for the testing but falls short of being complete.  Getting H & S to play nice together is just the beginning, adding upgrades to both and some things go awry and the OS begins to baulk. 



#3 NullPointerException

NullPointerException
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 29 November 2014 - 12:14 PM

Yes, in the 70's and 80's (When I was just a child, unknown to programming), programmers used punch cards. I do not think programming (at least OOP) is heavily math influenced, while Algorithms have their own different story. Computer science is more related to programming (Algorithms) than computer engineering, as engineering heavily involves internal hardware (like re-programming the transistor or reading ohms) while computer science is more related to software (Logical reasoning, algorithm solving, writing languages etc.). If you are truly a hardcore computer-mathematics freak, then you should be a computer engineer. If you are in-between a self-taught programmer and a math nerd, you should go to computer science. And if you are a normal guy looking to teach himself more about computers, you should go to programming. I started off with CS instead of programming, but it was back in the 90's (Still not as old as 70's or 80's were Assembly and even binary ruled) and not much was considered "high level".



#4 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,845 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:55 AM

Posted 29 November 2014 - 06:25 PM

The training format for CS seemed a bit over bearing in garbage not needed to advance your "technical" understanding of a computer.  Punch cards were the start, advancing to punched paper tapes and eventually to magnetic media, 8 track type at first and then to cassette.  All needed to have a loading sequence required many different tapes to different jobs.  When the CD came along, the doors were thrown open the door to the huge number and size of programs needed for the more complex OS systems.  The technical types need to approach from an electrical/electronic engineering aspect to make sure they don't go sticking their hands where they could prove lethal.



#5 NullPointerException

NullPointerException
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 30 November 2014 - 10:38 AM

We always can find gold in garbage. Learning the processor's insides and re-building them from scratch is tedious, but it makes you extremely sharp and familiar with computers.



#6 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,845 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:55 AM

Posted 30 November 2014 - 07:24 PM

Todays devices have added so many internal functions, it's almost become a single chip.  Expansion and upgrades are the main reason to leave some outside the architecture like memory and network interfaces.  The more complex the processor, the most extensive the initial boot needs to be.  Early processors (4004) had only 4K of RAM, no ROM (yet) and loading was by toggle switch, advance step at a time.



#7 NullPointerException

NullPointerException
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 125 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:25 PM

Posted 30 November 2014 - 11:33 PM

Yet i7 is so different than Duo Core 2. It's much of a horror.



#8 NickAu

NickAu

    Bleepin' Fish Doctor


  • Moderator
  • 13,540 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1 Australia
  • Local time:04:55 AM

Posted 01 December 2014 - 07:15 PM

 

Learning the processor's insides and re-building them from scratch is tedious, but it makes you extremely sharp and familiar with computers.

Are you saying you can take a processor apart? Or do you mean opening the case and replacing a hard drive or ram?



#9 rp88

rp88

  • Members
  • 3,059 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:05:55 PM

Posted 01 December 2014 - 10:36 PM

"Are you saying you can take a processor apart? "
Not without an electron microscope and a clean room worthy of NASA.



"We always can find gold in garbage."
In computers you definitely can, not enough gold to be economically worthwhile, but there is still gold in those chips. Gold is used as it is a good conductor but also very ductile and can be machined into very fine wires, exactly what is need for the wires connecting a chip to the rest of the circuit board.

Edited by rp88, 01 December 2014 - 10:38 PM.

Back on this site, for a while anyway, been so busy the last year.

My systems:2 laptops, intel i3 processors, windows 8.1 installed on the hard-drive and linux mint 17.3 MATE installed to USB

#10 NickAu

NickAu

    Bleepin' Fish Doctor


  • Moderator
  • 13,540 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:127.0.0.1 Australia
  • Local time:04:55 AM

Posted 01 December 2014 - 11:00 PM

 

"We always can find gold in garbage."
In computers you definitely can,

http://youtu.be/ZRN3eClTJYM



#11 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,845 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:10:55 AM

Posted 02 December 2014 - 01:33 PM

The gold used in most CPU chips is microscopic, recovery is far too expensive for the minor amounts recovered.  Yes, a processor can be replicated with simple logic gates and smaller memory modules but it would take clost to a million individual devices.  The progress has now advanced to the point where an electron microscope blows holes through the older designa and now use the electron beam to cut through the substrates and doped junctions to make the chips.  Think 20 nanometers, 20  billionths of a meter is the size of the average of a junction created, representing one transistor or gate.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users