Talk:Computer science: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:49, 2 February 2006

Latest revision as of 09:49, 1 August 2025

(551 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header|search=yes}}

{{WikiProject Computer science}}

{{Afd-merged-from|Informatics Practices|Informatics Practices|9 September 2018|7 October 2018}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject Computer science|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction|importance=Top}}

}}

{{To do}}

{{Copied|from=Computer science|from_oldid=958423907|to=Computer science education|to_diff=958632427|to_oldid=951189804}}

{{Annual readership|days=1000}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 50K

|counter = 6

|minthreadsleft = 4

|algo = old(180d)

|archive = Talk:Computer science/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{clear}}

== Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2024 (2) ==

'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]] [[/Archive 2|2]] [[/Archive 3|3]] [[/Archive 4|4]] [[/Archive 5|5]]

{{edit semi-protected|Computer science|answered=yes}}

[[User:Hamoodyshal1|Hamoodyshal1]] ([[User talk:Hamoodyshal1|talk]]) 15:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Berger E (2017) Csrankings: Computer science rankings. http://csrankings.org, accessed: 2017-05-01

:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 16:29, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

==Definition resolution==

[[Image:Samtheeagle.jpg|right|thumb|[[Sam the Eagle|You are all weirdos]].]]

== Should the CS article be bumped up to Level 2 in vitality? ==

Dear all -- there was a long and extended debate on the exact nature of the sentence beginning the article. I was brought in as part of [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal|medcabal]]; see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-28_Computer_Science_dispute]. After a lot of work by everyone, we have arrived at a consensus solution (we took a brief poll and there were no objections, though there were definitely a few "weak supports"); the consensus is:

The computer science article is one of the most important, if not the most important article relating to computer science - since it literally is about computer science. I think it should be bumped up to atleast Level 2 for now since there is still some things we have to include into the article such as references. [[User:Vivaidris|Vivaidris]] ([[User talk:Vivaidris|talk]]) 19:58, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:'''Computer science''' is the study of the theoretical foundations of [[information]] and [[computation]] and their implementation and application in [[computer system]]s.

The long discussion which produced this consensus is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Computer_science/definition_archive here]. There is some important material there; please consider reading it if you're considering updating the discussion of definitional issues. I've also added some "final thoughts" on the question there; please if you've been involved in the debate, scroll to the end. [[User:Sdedeo|Sdedeo]] <small>([[User:Sdedeo/advice|tips]])</small> 06:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

== Often hotly ==

:''Because of its relative newness, there are some alternative definitions of computer science and its strict definition is often hotly debated''

''...on Wikipedia.'' (I'm tempted to insert that :-) While I don't disagree with the statement, I wonder if the modifier "often hotly" is necessary. Also I'm not sure if "Because of its relative newness" is accurate. There are many fields of study far newer than computer science, whose definitions aren't debated. [[User:Fredrik|Fredrik Johansson]] - [[User talk:Fredrik|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/Fredrik|contribs]] 07:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, that sentences and the one following it are in need of some rephrasing. Here's my suggestion:

: Because Computer science is a rapidly evolving field, it is difficult to define precisely. Research into the area often crosses into other disciplines, including, among many others, [[cognitive science]], [[physics]] (see [[Quantum Computing]]), and [[psychology]] (see [[Human Computer Interaction]])

--[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] 19:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though the link to [[alternative definitions of computer science]] may need to be preserved (I'd be fine removing that entire article, but others may disagree). --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The new phrasing sounds good to me too. Also, I agree with [[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] that the link to [[alternative definitions of computer science]] should be maintained, at least until the material from that article can be merged into the [[computer science]] article in a coherent way. --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 20:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Added''' --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] 23:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

===Evolution and divergence===

On the same paragraph:

:"Because computer science is a rapidly evolving field, it is difficult to define precisely."

I wanted to find a source for this. However, the sources found stated historical claims for different perspectives. We can point out individual areas that have evolved rapidly, but, unless a source can be found, the statement needs to reflect the references:

:Computer science research has branched off and into other disciplines: [[computer engineering]], [[artificial intelligence]], [[cognitive science]], [[physics]] (see [[quantum computing]]), [[linguistics]], [[software engineering]], and others. Because computer science has evolved like this, there are divergent perspectives on its definition. The methods involved to train individuals and the [[diversity of computer science|diversity in computer science]] has led to its likely debatable definition.

I changed "computer science grads" to "individuals" and touched-up on the rest. "Diversity in computer science" is more impartial than "alternative definitions." &mdash; [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 13:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the tone of your proposal, but the language doesn't seem to flow well to me. How about the following revision for the paragraph:

:Research into computer science often crosses into other disciplines, including, among many others, computer engineering, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, physics (see quantum computing), linguistics, and software engineering. Because of the [[diversity of computer science]] and the variety of careers pursued by computer scientists, perspectives on its precise definition may vary.

It's a fairly minimal change, but I think it works better than the current rev. What do you think? --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:I prefer this version. As you say, it flows better. --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but small source-able change to add: "variety of careers pursued by computer scientists" -> "methods involved to train individuals" &mdash; [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 17:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:I'm afraid I don't understand what "methods involved to train individuals" is supposed to mean. Nor do I see it as a replacement "variety of careers...", since one talks about training while the other talks about what happens after training. Can you please elaborate on what you are trying to say with the "methods" phrase, and perhaps we can find a phrasing that more clearly expresses your intent. --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did "variety of careers" come from? Here is the source for my shorted exerpt: "''it is argued that the diversity of research paradigms in computer science may be responsible both for our difficulties in deciding how computer scientists should be trained and for divergences of opinion concerning the nature of computer science research.''" [http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=807694]

: Because of this [[diversity of computer science]] and the difficult decisions made on how computer scientist should be trained, perspectives on its precise definition may vary. &mdash; [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 19:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::# The sentence you quote states that the diversity of computer science is responsible for difficulties in deciding in training, ''and also'' that the diversity of CS makes defining the nature of CS difficult. It does ''not'' claim that the difficulties deciding on training are responsible for the difficulties in defining CS.

::# This from the Computing Sciences Accreditation Board, which is composed of representatives from the ACM, IEEE-Computer, and AIS: ''Computer science is a young discipline that is evolving rapidly from its beginnings in the 1940's. ... Because of the rapid evolution it is difficult to provide a complete list of computer science areas.'' [http://www.csab.org/comp_sci_profession.html]

::# From the same website: ''A professional computer scientist must have a firm foundation in the crucial areas of the field and will most likely have an in-depth knowledge in one or more of the other areas of the discipline, depending upon the person's particular area of practice.'' - which implies that computer scientists have a variety of "areas of practice" (i.e. careers). From the previous quote, we can infer that these various careers are hard to list. As a result, defining CS by listing the areas in which computer scientists work will also be hard.

:: --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

:::In reply to 1, it does imply that -- recursively. The article states the different dominant roles of how individuals were trained as CS evolved. &mdash; [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my original phrasing:

:"Because computer science is a rapidly evolving field, it is difficult to define precisely."

The word evolution in and of itself implies that there is a diversity of different incarnations, some of which have been succesful, and others which have not been. My phrasing is quite general, as I think is appropriate for the introductory paragraph. A quick google search for "computer science rapidly evolving" shows that university CS departments describe their discipline in that exact way. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] 21:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

: I am 100% happy with this phrasing. However, if it has to change, I would support [[User:Donhalcon|bmills]]' proposal (although I see little value in making such a change). --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It still has to be reflective. I know some here hate to write in the past, but that is how the words should be used. Here is another suggestion with cause-n-effect type expression, to use "computer-science research" as a group, and to combine everybody's ideas with an added Dijkstra perspective:

:Computer-science research has branched itself into many disciplines, which includes, among many others, computer engineering, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, physics (see quantum computing), linguistics, and software engineering. Because computer science has evolved like this, there are [[diversity of computer science|divergent perspectives]], and, in the management of this on how computer scientist should be trained, it is difficult to define precisely. &mdash; [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 23:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

: It's good that you're trying to be as precise as possible, but this seems to suggest that computer science started as a single endeavour, and subsequently branched out into different areas. The reality is that there have been many different starting points in the evolution of computer science, and since the beginning computer scientists have both taken and contributed ideas to and from other disciplines. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] 00:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Consider that "computer-science research" is seen either strictly as an explicit group or an implied group metaphorically, it is not precise to a single endeavour. Such usage helps to stay impartial. There are areas that include computer-science research, and there are areas that spun-off from computer-science research. &mdash; [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::: It is hardly the case that physics, linguistics, or cognitive science "spun off" from CS. But the way your statement is phrased implies that they did. It is for this reason, as well as the awkward nature of the last sentence (e.g. the meaning of "in the management of this on how computer scientist should be trained" is less than clear, nor does the phrase seem grammatically correct to me), that I have proposed the alternate wording below. --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 17:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

: I'm sorry, I find the proposed phrasing somewhat awkward. Here is an alternative that is consistent with [http://www.csab.org/comp_sci_profession.html], and retains the flavor of your proposed wording as well as the original phrasing:

::'''Proposal''' - ''Computer science is a young discipline, and has evolved rapidly from its beginnings in the 1940's. Research into computer science has often crossed into other disciplines, including, among many others, [[computer engineering]], [[artificial intelligence]], [[cognitive science]], physics (see [[quantum computing]]), [[linguistics]], and [[software engineering]]. As a result, computer science is a [[diversity of computer science|difficult field to define precisely]].''

:--[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 00:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Sounds good to me. --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] 00:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:::I think that works well. Dz, does Allan's suggestion work for you? --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:::: I find it awkward. I'll reply more later... &mdash; [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 15:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::::: Well, by all means feel free to propose (another) alternative phrasing. --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 17:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Since we now have a [http://www.csab.org/comp_sci_profession.html source] which provides support for the phrase ''"Because computer science is a rapidly evolving field, it is difficult to define precisely."'', the lack of which was the cause of this argument in the first place, why don't we just leave the paragraph as is? --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 17:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:I think the main problem is that the second paragraph (the one in which we incessantly second-guess our consensus definition) is far too large for the purpose it serves. Why don't we just delete it? People will probably be able to tell from the rest of the article that CS means many different things to many different people. --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:: Good point. I'd support deletion, although I think that it would be worth appending the sentence

:::''Research in computer science has also often crossed into other disciplines, including, among many others, [[computer engineering]], [[artificial intelligence]], [[cognitive science]], physics (see [[quantum computing]]), [[linguistics]], and [[software engineering]].

::to the first paragraph, if only because it further underscores the diversity of the field mentioned in the first para. --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 21:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Change to first paragraph ==

I've removed the following line from the first paragraph:

: Still others, like [[computer programming]], study the process of formally describing computations (using [[programming languages]]) for use in [[computer system]]s.

First of all, let me apologize if this change comes too soon after the mediation. However, I feel it is necessary. Computer programming is "the craft of implementing one or more interrelated abstract algorithms using a particular programming language to produce a concrete computer program." It is not the "study of processes of describing computations", as suggested in that sentence. Can anyone think of a better way to phrase? --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] 23:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

: How about

:: ''Still others focus on the problems involved in implementing computations. For example, [[programming language theory]] studies approaches to describing a computation, while [[computer programming]] applies specific [[programming languages]] to craft a solution to some concrete computational problem.''

: or something along those lines? --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

::: '''Added''' -- that's great, it really clears things up --[[User:Jonovision|Jonovision]] 06:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to give references for all the defining words in the very first sentence? I know it reflects the effort that was spent hashing the definition out, but for an outsider, it looks a bit strange. --[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] 01:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

: I agree, they are rather arbitrary as well. If we want to provide sources, this is not the way to go. —''[[User:R.Koot|Ruud]]'' 01:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::They do exist; we know they're sourced and there's a good history in the talk page if anybody really strongly needs links, but I think the opening sentence is general enough to be "common knowledge" (more or less) and as such doesn't need to be explicitly sourced. On the other hand, they're not really doing any harm... --[[User:Donhalcon|bmills]] 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree that the references seem a bit out of place. However, it was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer_science&diff=37506302&oldid=37483197 Dz that inserted the refs], so I imagine that we'll have to get him to agree to removing them. --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Hey, i wasn't suggesting that we ''delete'' them outright (references are great!), but rather that we move them somewhere more relevant (and less distracting). To me, the two most obvious places would be the part of the article that talks about the definition disputes, and/or the [[Diversity of computer science]] article (which is apparently due for merging, anyway). --[[User:Piet Delport|Piet Delport]] 01:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can get wikipedians to remove all the references and notes to the article on [[Hugo Chavez]], then I might be persuaded. There is a reason why that article has so many notes and references, its needs its sources. The few people that are familiar with this article may not want the sources, but there are lots of people that can use them. Perhaps, make a suggestion to the developers of mediawiki to have an option to turn notes and references off. I've been in other highly controversial articles, and the feedback always state to use notes and references -- it is a must. The policy even states to cite sources. The article needs more references -- not less. As with the above paragraph above that shows the diversity and evolution of CS, it needs to be sourced also. &mdash; [[User:Dzonatas|<b><FONT COLOR="#0000FF">Dz</FONT><FONT COLOR="#3F50FF">on</FONT><FONT COLOR="#5F80FF">at</FONT><FONT COLOR="#77B0FF">as</FONT></b>]] 14:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

== Section rearrangement ==

I've retitled the section '''"Theory and practice"''' as '''"Computer science education"''', since most of the text was actually about differing educational programs rather than talking directly about theory and practice. I've also renamed the section previously called '''"Relationship with software engineering"''' to '''"Relationship with other fields"''', and moved the paragraph discussing CS vs. computer engineering and information systems into that section (where it seems more appropriate). --[[User:Allan McInnes|Allan McInnes]] 21:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)