So what is the difference between a software engineer and computer scientist?

Because I have yet to define it

(Obviously from an earlier thread).

Comments elided.

Cheers

PeteS

Reply to
PeteS
Loading thread data ...

I'd say the scientist is about theory and algorithms while the engineer is about architecture and practical implementations.

My 2 cents.

Reply to
OBones

The difference is the same as the difference between the arse and the printer. Scientists and printers are wasting more paper then arses and engineers.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

formatting link

Reply to
Vladimir Vassilevsky

Scientists design and test things that can only be built once.

Engineers design and test things that can be mass produced.

Reply to
Eric

OBones a écrit :

Yep. The computer scientist theoretically knows how to implement efficient computer-software architectures while the software engineer practically knows how to waste this.

--
Thanks,
Fred.
Reply to
Fred Bartoli

Fred Bartoli a écrit :

Should have wrote: The computer scientist theoretically knows how to implement efficient computer-software architectures while the software engineer knows how to waste this practically.

--
Thanks,
Fred.
Reply to
Fred Bartoli

A software engineer achieves stuff. A computer scientist just writes papers about it. ;)

pete

--
pete@fenelon.com "it made about as much sense as a polythene sandwich"
Reply to
Pete Fenelon

Or another question. What's the "science" bit in computer science?. john

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Reply to
john jardine

Unsurpassed pedantry, a demi-paedogogical attitude to all those not members of the One True Language Faith, a complete disregard for inconvenient truth and an unquashable penchant for developing extremely complex methods of finding incomprehensibly complex solutions to extremely simple problems.

A white coat is optional these days, which is a pity, because back in the early days of computers, that coat was in fact the principal badge of separation between the computer "scientists" and any old engineer with hands full of tools.

Reply to
larwe

formatting link

"Still others maintain that software cannot be engineered at all."

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Ah. That's how you know a field isn't really science: it includes "science" in its title.

For instance, compre "political science" and "social science" with "physics", "chemistry" or "astronomy".

1/2 :)
--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  I am covered with
                                  at               pure vegetable oil and I am
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Grant Edwards

I truly look forward to your posts here. This one is no less truthful than most of them.

Reply to
Elan Magavi

A computer scientist is someone that can't get a real job as an engineer.

Regards,

--
Mark McDougall, Engineer
Virtual Logic Pty Ltd, 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Mark McDougall

Hello,

Computer Scientist - who creates new technology! Computer Engineer - who uses the technology to create a buggy application! Because of the unique nature in developing buggy application, has led to an area called Testing!

Best Regards, Vivekanandan M

Reply to
Vivekanandan M

Computer scientists use Linux, software engineers use windows?

Reply to
The Real Andy

Oops, i just realised I was trying to be funny and that most wont see my sense of humour.

Nevermind. IMHO, an engineer models known real world applications whilst a scientist researches new methods if implementing real world applications. Most engineers are scientists in themselves in one way or another.

Reply to
The Real Andy

In news:epvr31$g0b$ snipped-for-privacy@newsserver.cilea.it , Colin Paul Gloster wrote: "[..]

[..] do not place too much faith in labels: disciplines are not cohesively categorized into mutually exclusive names. [..] [..] one of the words in "computer science" is "computer", [..]"

In news:LY5yh.6353$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe4-win.ntli.net , Peter Smith wrote: "So what is the difference between a software engineer and computer scientist? [..]"

John Larkin wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com : "

formatting link

"Still others maintain that software cannot be engineered at all.""

John Jardine wrote in news:45c8ed70$0$16386$ snipped-for-privacy@free.teranews.com : "Or another question. What's the "science" bit in computer science?."

In response to Peter Smith and John Larkin and John Jardine, this is yet another iteration in the history of discussions of the lack of cohesion of the terms "computer science" and "software engineering" (lack of cohesion, practically speaking that is: one could technically be a computer scientist without awareness of software: people who devised abaci millennia ago did not know anything about software for their computers) (such lack of cohesion could also be mentioned re "science" and "engineering" (Dublin City University's physics society later became a physics and engineering society which disgusted the original founder; and from

formatting link
: "[..] The old department name "Kiruna space and environment campus" has changed and is now "Department of Space Science". [..]

Our goal is to cultivate what we do best - space engineering . The new name describes that better and also helps avoiding confusion. [..]

[..]"); and re "physics" and "chemistry" (and "astrophysics" which is the study of chemistry/physics of stars); and re "astrophysics" and "space science" (I am aware of someone whose research is on "Astrophysics" who did not distinguish between "astrophysics" and "space science"; I am aware of someone else whose research is on "Astrophysics" who distinguished between "astrophysics" and "space science"; and I am aware of someone else who describes his topic now that he is located close to the discriminator as "Astrophysics" though it is what the discriminator classified as "space science" and who described his (identical) topic as "Space Science" when he used to be located close to the astrophysicist mentioned closest to the beginning of this sentence)). One may accuse people who should devise highly cohesive designs to have disqualified themselves by using terms which are not highly cohesive for disciplines. An example of a discussion of disciplines is Robert L. Glass, V. Ramesh, Iris Vessey, "An analysis of research in computing disciplines", "Communications of the ACM", Volume 47, Number 6 (2004),
formatting link

An example of an attempt to defend computer science as a science is Peter J. Denning, "The profession of IT: Is computer science science?", "Communications of the ACM", Volume 48, Number 4 (2005),

formatting link

An example of an attempt to defend sofware engineering as engineering is Peter Amey, "Re: Natural Forces, Engineering, and Software", news:comp.software-eng , Message-ID: , Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:03:59 +0100.

Lew> Or another question. What's the "science" bit in computer science?.

Unsurpassed pedantry,"

Speaking properly is not a bad thing. Meaning what is said is not a bad thing.

Lewin A. R. W. Edwards wrote: " a demi-paedogogical attitude to all those not members of the One True Language Faith,"

Oh, I can think of something other than Ada if something suitable specific to the domain is available: e.g. Backus-Naur form for pattern recognition.

Lewin A. R. W. Edwards wrote: " a complete disregard for inconvenient truth "

I do not disregard inconvenient truth. I am aware of electronic engineers who do ignore inconvenient truth: e.g. that simulating with an unsynthesizable intellectual property model written with a SystemC(R) library in C++ does not necessarily have a different order of magnitude of running time than simulating synthesizable VHDL code of the same I.P. core. I can think of a computer scientist who disregarded "inconvenient truth" (if I really want to, I could probably think of more such computer scientists), and I can think of another computer scientist whose attitude to artifical intelligence has been described as "A.I. my arse". I can think of people in a number of other disciplines who have "a complete disregard for inconvenient truth", but this does not mean that a discipline which suffers such members does not have other people in the field who do not disregard "inconvenient truth".

Lewin A. R. W. Edwards wrote: "and an unquashable penchant for developing extremely complex methods of finding incomprehensibly complex solutions to extremely simple problems.

[..]"

Perhaps. I have noticed this problem in mechanical engineers and electronic engineers, e.g. expecting results from software without installing it. As a computer scientist, I have had the intelligence and the the misfortune to need to point out to an engineer who claimed that something I was supposed to use "was completely installed" was not actually installed.

Reply to
Colin Paul Gloster

Grant Edwards wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com : "Ah. That's how you know a field isn't really science: it includes "science" in its title.

For instance, compre "political science" and "social science" with "physics", "chemistry" or "astronomy".

1/2 :)"

So is physics "really science" unlike "physical sciences" (

formatting link
); is chemistry "really science" unlike "chemical sciences" (
formatting link
); and is astronomy "really science" unlike "Astronomical Science" ( WWW2.Keck.Hawaii.edu/library/biblios/aokeck.php ); and is "Space Science" (
formatting link
) not "really science"?

Reply to
Colin Paul Gloster

This posting was truly succulent.

Colin, my poor scientist-amongst-the-engineers, do you not realize that this posting of yours (both the content, the lack of humor, and the lack of perception of humor from others) epitomize the "demi- paedagogical" epithet that I applied to your class in an earlier email?

If I were the planet's most articulate and subtle master of intricate understated humor, I could not have assembled a better reply than yours.

While the subject matter is not exactly the same, I recommend this for a good read: - the idea that if you're outside you can't see in, and if you're inside your perception of the outside is skewed - is highly apposite.

Reply to
larwe

I do my best to keep the turkey basted with the acid of cynicism.

Reply to
larwe

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.