Thanks Lamar.
William.
On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 3:51 PM, Lamar Owen <[email protected]> wrote:
On 02/23/2016 03:29 AM, Yasha Karant wrote:
> Apologies, but I do not understand the "+1"; is this approval to post
> additional commentary on this matter, or, again, is this discussion
> not suitable for this list? I did not initiate the matter of the ACM
> view or curricular recommendations, in contrast to that of an
> information technology approach; but there seem to be fundamental
> misconceptions concerning the fields of computer science and
> engineering in the commentary, just as I have met some "applied"
> physicists who have misconceptions about fundamental physics...
Once again, the primary purpose of my bringing up the ACM curricula was
simply to use an academically accepted source of definitions to
establish common terminology, and to relate that even though many on
this list are in various theoretical sciences they are not necessarily
'computer scientists' by the ACM's definition of same. Many are in
scientific institutions (such as my own) who deal with computers used by
various theoretical/basic research scientists, but who are themselves
'information technologists,' again by the ACM's definition of same. I
am not an astrophysicist; nor am I any one of the various subcategories
of astronomer (astronomy embodies astrometry, photometry, spectroscopy,
cosmology, and many other subfields); but I do support research
astronomers as my $day_job (to use an IT-ism). I do have an engineering
degree, incidentally, but that is not my main job for the most part.
My observation was that you are not likely to get a 'computer scientist'
mindset in answers to systems administration questions (squarely in the
'information technologist' realm), but you are very likely to get an
'information technologist' answer instead. The details of the
differences are easily found in the ACM's own curricula standards; for
the list, those may be found at
http://www.acm.org/education/curricula-recommendations
It boils down to a difference in terminology. A good example is the
'+1' used to signify 'I agree with that' that you found alien, but those
who have been in IT for a long time understood as a part of the tacit
knowledge in the IT discipline. The use of '+1' on mailing lists and
Usenet prior to that is pretty common. Degree of agreement is expressed
by a larger number; +1000 would be 'vehemently agree,' for instance.
I would personally be interested in your commentary, and I already know
that there are others who would be as well, but it is probably not
appropriate for the list. So, please send me (and whomever may request
it directly from you) and if it is ok with you I'll forward along to
those who have contacted me privately with an interest in reading that
commentary as well.
>
> For Lamar, who evidently has looked at my not-recently-updated
> academic home page, the item you mention is posted there from another
> source (I do not have any graphics artists to support my work, and do
> not have the spare time to do the stick figure material you see) that
> I thought was credited.
Yes, I saw the actual author (after following a link in the text of the
document to grab the example source code) after I made the post, and I
apologize for the improper attribution.
Hope you have a great day.
