There is a similar slant against "academic" computer science.
As someone who went to college for CompSci, I see good reason for a slant against computer science. The problem is that it's the wrong topic for somebody who does software development!
What we do is not science, it's engineering. Much of the time spent teaching us the science aspect is wasted, at least compared to the opportunity to use the time on engineering topics like modeling and design, documentation, etc.
> The problem is that it's the wrong topic for somebody who does software development!
For somebody building the next CRUD app, perhaps. In my line of work (EDA software), I routinely apply concepts from my computation science education on the job and in my code. Algorithms, data structures, discrete mathematics, graph theory, set theory, type theory, universal algebra, tractability theory, automata theory — these are all topics where knowledge has come in handy in my professional experience at various jobs.
Of course, concepts from other fields — biology, linguistics, and physics, for example — have also come in handy on occasion. I almost feel like there's no such thing as a "wrong topic for somebody who does software development", though some topics are certainly more relevant/useful than others.
Sounds exactly like what I would expect an Engineer to do. Apply theory to the real world. Versus a scientist who I would expect to develop, test, and prove new theories.
Well, then you're most likely part of minority. And even in that minority I'm willing to bet that a lot of the time is spent in things that have little to do with Computer Science.
Be honest and think of all the time you've spent fiddling with build systems, various random tools (compilers, scripts, databases, version control, etc.).
Far too often, to be sure. Two things I have yet to encounter in my (admittedly short, so far) professional career are a sane build system and version control that isn't a PITA...
If you are building programming languages, compilers, tools, etc, Comp Sci is certainly pertinent. If you aren't building programming tools, you can get away with a minimal Comp Sci background.
I went to school for Software Engineering, in the engineering faculty. My school also had Computer Science.
The difference was somewhat ironically that the CS degree had more practical, hands on coding, and engineering was more theoretical, plus we had to take all the physics/chemistry/math courses to meet the requirements of the Engineering board.
You could argue that for many of us it is Software Carpentry.
I am a B.Sc. in something something computers. I have worked on some serious stuff (real distributed sensor systems across huge geographical areas and another time working on fringes of a soft-realtime image-recognition system).
Much of the time however I feel I'm much more of a software carpenter.
I actually quite enjoyed some of the stuff from "Software carpentry" online course even though I already was an engineer.
I completely agree. I love computer science. I love software development. But those two things are radically different things.
What I'm finding it difficult to find, these days, is actual mature-age accredited uni courses in computer science. Instead, you get a plethora of development courses which, as you say, are akin to engineering, not science.
As someone who went to college for CompSci, I see good reason for a slant against computer science. The problem is that it's the wrong topic for somebody who does software development!
What we do is not science, it's engineering. Much of the time spent teaching us the science aspect is wasted, at least compared to the opportunity to use the time on engineering topics like modeling and design, documentation, etc.