So there was no distiction, we both learned CS concepts of algorithms and less about the real issues at hand of composing systems.

I agree, it’s not very common to have to create algorithms and I think CS degrees focus too much on this. It’s more of a mathematical problem/exercise that has applications down the road if you do a masters/PHD. Real world problems involve composing systems that are reusable (which you learn about), that can scale well, easy to adopt, and can be developed at a reasonable cost/time.

In an interview I’m screening for intelligence, problem-solving ability, open-mindedness, and the ability to fail gracefully. Teaching a person with these qualities to write good code is considerably easier than dealing with somebody who can talk all day about good engineering practice but lacks intelligence or flips out when they don’t know how to do something.

>library and algorithms
the idea “Not coding because sure there’s a library” is very terrible for the sector: the value of IT people is’nt only to understand the functional view, but translator this view in computer world. I see a lot of problems by uncorrect algorithms that lower the performance and throws exception for an exagerate use of memory.
I think the software engineer is mor important for testing, but the testing is matter only when the manager see the monetary value, and a lot of software engineers are unable to express this.

bye

I wasn’t knocking science btw. It is my great respect for science that makes we wonder how software development can really compare to those ideals. You put well when you said “seat of the pants” based testing. I think this is true even when doing something like TDD. I’m not craving something more formal mind, I’d like to concentrate on getting work done.

I agree there is no formally recognised standard for the scientific method. However, I would argue that it’s basic concepts (accumulating evidence, creating hypotheses + formation of theories, peer review) are agreed by most scientists, and it is those concepts that I see little of in software development.

Oh, and what is wrong with logical positivism?

I guess then I’d have to agree. If one’s goal as an interviewer is to challenge the interviewee and have him/her think outside the box – at least make it relevant to the position for which s/he happens to be interviewing.

That said, the position for which I was interviewing was in the Zurich office doing web application development, so the first question regarding an egg drop wasn’t relevant as far as I could tell. The second, dealt with database design and storage and I was clearly out of my league – but for a web application position, was very relevant.

There is no ISO Science Certification Program. Science actually composes a number of schools of philosophy, came into existence fairly recently, and is evolving fairly rapidly. For instance, logical positivism was popular early in the 20th century, because has been replaced with more nuanced views.

Computer science is science because it combines mathematics (algorithmic analysis, theory of computability) with empirical and statistical testing (performance testing, and uh… software testing?).

It’s true, a lot of engineering doesn’t require a lot of tricky algorithmic analysis, or formal proofs, so it is weak on the analytical side.

On the other hand, I think there’s a lot of room for application of the empirical aspect of science, which has historically been ignored in computer science because of the influence of people like Dijkstra. In fact, I think that is exactly what this blog is about.

Probably at some point software testing will need to become more formal and developer a stronger basis in statistics. Right now, a lot of what happens in practice is very “seat of the pants” based testing, but that has a lot to do with computer science being a young discipline.