In fact you miss my point David. Algorithmics and Applied Mathematics is not what I was referring to.
I refer rather to the discipline associated with the task of Software Engineering, Mathematical Methods (rigorous and systematic) rather than Mathematical insights. The use of Languages and Specifications that have a formal basis. Proofs about programs and their properties etc... Steven On Oct 12, 2011, at 5:46 PM, David Lee wrote: > Good luck with that. > I'm all for education, especially mathematics (although I actually favor > Asttro physicist over Physicists over Mathematicians in terms of accepting > reality over theory ...) > > I remember 25+ years ago when I worked a at a CADCAM company we hired a > fresh grade with an MA in Math. His one saving grace (why the boss hired > him) was he studied geometric transformations which included as mapping from > Sphere to any shape. In theory if you could plot a path on a sphere you > could just apply a nice transformation and it would apply to any shape ... > say a cube. > This should have really saved us some serious work when plotting cutting > paths for a CMC machine on bars of metal or wood ... Just compute the sphere > pattern and transform it ! Wow,. > > Nice. > Sweet ! > > well ... something I immediately noted as "obvious" is that when going from > Sphere to Cube there are some practical ramifications for any real device. > Like the really interesting non-linear changes in a cutting tool turning the > 90deg corner where the mathematical model shows it a simple point-to-point > transition. > > Needless to say he didn't last long (and actually at his choice, he didn't > have the staying power of someone who actually wanted to get real work > done). > > Math. Nice. > when it works. Until then , give me someone who knows the difference > between theory and reality. > > > -David > > > ---------------------------------------- > David A. Lee > [email protected] > http://www.xmlsh.org > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Steven Ericsson-Zenith > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 8:17 PM > To: Michael Kay > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [xquery-talk] XML/XQuery academic conferences ? > > > > I agree with Michael. Software Engineering is in a deplorable state for > these reasons. It has a real impact in the economy because maintenance costs > and failure rates are unreasonably high. It compensates by providing work > for lower skilled workers prepared to work hard. > > It's tolerated by some (start-up) corporations only because a small team of > motivated, productive and hard working bumblers can build stunning and > unreasonable corporate financial value. The costs are born by other > corporations (and the public) because they know, or can get, nothing better. > > We are in a growth phase of new technology usage. It will continue for > awhile but it won't go on forever. At some point in the not too distant > future Software Engineers will need the skills of Mathematicians (and no, > they do not have those skills now). They will need these skills because it > is ultimately the only way to manage the increasing complexity. > > The fact of the matter is that Ph.D.s often do write less code, and that is > often because less is better. It is also because they typically spend more > time thinking about the problem in order that they can write less code. If > they have the mathematical skills I allude to then the code may never need > maintenance (because you will be able to prove that it has the desired > properties). But when placed in an environment in which there is an urgency > to patch failures or there is a deadline that does not allow time for > thought they often can't compete. > > The hacker will be needed as long as we write software this way. But it is > the wrong way to write software. > > I've been both BTW, I began as an industry hacker long before my Ph.D. - and > I've run project teams with both. > > Speaking now as an Academic. I use XML, XSLT and XQuery in my research. I do > so primarily because system design and programming with schema awareness is > a step in the right direction. > > With respect, > Steven > > > On Oct 12, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Michael Kay wrote: > >> >>>> >>>> Few of the cs phds I've interviewed could do ANY of the tasks you > quote. None had to pass an exam in making programs that actually worked >>>> >>>> >> I have to say my experience is the opposite. I've worked with a great many > software developers who were good at making things, but lacked the education > to discover the theory of how they ought to be made: they were mechanics > rather than engineers. As a result I've seen a lot of people building things > using home-grown invented techniques that were vastly inferior to the state > of the art available from the research literature. Or doing crazy things > like trying to parse XML with regular expressions. You get something that > works most of the time (if you're lucky), but often costs a lot more and > performs a lot worse than if the designers had had a higher level of > professional education. >> >> Of course that doesn't mean that everyone with a PhD is a good programmer > or designer, but most of those I have worked with have been. >> >> Michael Kay >> Saxonica >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] >> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] > http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
