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

"[..]

Colin, my poor scientist-amongst-the-engineers, do you not realize that this posting of yours (both the content, the lack of humor,"

My post was not very funny, but it was not totally void of humor ("A.I. my arse" and the renaming a department to have "Science" in its title without "Engineering" in order to avoid confusion that it is relevant to engineering). Though perhaps that I have gone to such effort to track these examples will amuse you.

" and the lack of perception of humor from others) epitomize the "demi- paedagogical" epithet that I applied to your class in an earlier email?

[..]"

I confess I did not really detect this in your posting, but fair enough.

"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."

At over ten pages, I have a doubt that I will read much of it so perhaps I will never know whether you think I am arrogant but as for some parts of the first page which I have noticed: "[..] Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments Justin Kruger and David Dunning Cornell University People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. [..]

It is one of the essential features of such incompetence that the person so afflicted is incapable of knowing that he is incompetent. To have such knowledge would already be to remedy a good portion of the offense. (Miller, 1993, p. 4) [..]"

I can agree that one does not necessarily realize one's own problems and I am optimistic. I have also noticed in others that a modicum of knowledge of a topic can result in inappropiate obsession with dominating the topic without ever realizing that still not enough has been learnt about it. This could apply to me too. Something which definitely applies to me is that many important things which are needed for any project I work on I do not know, but that is fine: I do not need to know everything: I work in multi-skilled teams. I have also noticed people who are supposedly experts in something and who have no problem of reminding me of this when we have conflicting ideas instead of showing me empirical evidence that their claims are true.

Reply to
Colin Paul Gloster
Loading thread data ...

That's a keeper. And to the Lewin/Colin dichotomy one could add:

"The power of acute observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Roberto Waltman (Who really,really,really would like to be a computer scientist...)

Reply to
Roberto Waltman

Not really. They can't even be built, it's not scientist's goal to build.

Not necessarily. It doesn't need to be mass produced. This is possibly the difference between a design engineer and a manufacturing engineer.

Just my humble opinion, Adrian

Reply to
Adrian Spilca

PeteS a écrit :

A software engineer writes bugs in a hardware company. A computer scientist writes bugs in a software company.

A software engineer writes software that is not sold but bundled with the real thing. A computer scientist writes software that is sold and that is the real thing.

;-)

Reply to
Lanarcam

A computer scientist writes software that is provably correct but does nothing. A software engineer writes software that is buggy but does something.

Or something.

John

Reply to
John Larkin

Theoretically there is no difference between theory and practice. Practically, however, there is.

Computer Science, like Christian Science, believes that faith and virtue overcome all ills.

A Computer Engineer is more like a Railroad Engineer, concerned with handling, timely arrival, and the course of the tracks.

Software engineer is a nearly meaningless term. In states which license engineers, there is rarely any such license. I myself am a software engineer. You could be one too.

--
	mac the naïf
Reply to
Alex Colvin

I didn't think I would set off quite a thread as this when I asked the question (quite honestly, incidentally).

I understand this completely and I agree with it to the extent I have met 'computer scientists' and 'software engineers' (a few of the former, a lot of the latter).

Research has to be done, of course, but I believe there is more truth in Sagan's words (attributed) than others;

"Great inventions do not start with Eureka!; they start with 'that's interesting...'"

Cheers

PeteS

Reply to
PeteS

I believe the original quote was "that's strange..." We should immediately start a violent argument about this; it's in the ISO procedure.

Reply to
larwe

A Software Engineer generally develops software for commercial purposes. I doing so he/she follows a quality process to ensure that the deliverable meets input requirements.

A Computer Scientist may not necessarily develop software for commercial purposes. He/she is not bounded by any quality process and typically the output may be regarded as "prototype".

+====================================+ I hate junk email. Please direct any genuine email to: kenlee at hotpop.com
Reply to
Ken Lee

Snort

Reply to
PeteS

formatting link

formatting link

You should perhaps first understand that I started this thread firmly tongue in cheek, yet it is a question that perhaps needs answering, at least from the volume of posts from certain literati.

I honestly try to use science in my engineering [I don't dismiss inconvenient truths, I work around them ;) ] but I am a design engineer, not a scientist.

Interestingly, one of the best engineers (imo, ymmvg) is actually called a scientist - Bob Pease, Staff scientist, National Semiconductor.

So, dear Colin, I appreciate your replies as much for their view as the hilarity they (inadvertently) add :)

Cheers

PeteS

Reply to
PeteS

Embedded engineers do software that operates their unit correctly, such that it is not obvious there *is* any software in the unit.

This is true computer science.

Cheers

PeteS

Reply to
PeteS

Actually, I see the humour; imo, those doomed to writing code for Windows need more training, but have less; those writing for *nix / *nux need less training but have more ;)

It should be noted I have written a lot of code on posix platforms :)

Cheers

PeteS

Reply to
PeteS

Maybe somebody should come up with "God science" - then maybe we'd learn a thing or three! ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie

Well, dang it! Now you've gone and confused the issue! ;-P

Thanks! Rich

Reply to
Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie

Very Zen!!

Or perhaps you just subscribe to the "advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" philosophy? ;)

Reply to
larwe

"Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@doubleclick.net...

Scientology - no science and bugger all ology.

Reply to
Homer J Simpson

Yes, I wrote that. Followed by a 1/2 smiley indicating it was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

But I didn't write that, even though it was attributed to me.

Something like "Creation Science"?

--
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  The entire CHINESE
                                  at               WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL TEAM all
                               visi.com            share ONE personality --
                                                   and have since BIRTH!!
Reply to
Grant Edwards

Well, I'm currently working on refining my "Stupid Design" theory. ;-D

Cheers! Rich

Reply to
Rich the Philosophizer

that sounds like a good idea. Here, let me flesh it out for you:

Stupid Design:

- God is an incompetent, bungling fool (eg creates humans flawed, so we cant keep the 10 commandments, then changes his mind about them ergo new testament)

- God is also astonishingly insecure (eg 1st commandment)

- This omniscient idiot then designs a human being so poorly that 3/4 of all pregnancies self-terminate in the first month because the prospective foetus is FUBAR.

- of the ones that actually make it out the birth canal, all manner of hideous monstrosities occur - retards, mutants, hydrocephalics, politicians et al

- And in a fit of Inspired Stupidity, God placed a sewer next door to the playground ;)

ID is just drivel. I especially like their "irreducible complexity" argument - we dont understand it so God must have done it. Morons.

Interesting to see ted haggard is now 100% heterosexual. Yeah Right....

Cheers Terry

Reply to
Terry Given

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.