Now that computer scientists have discovered that the statistics and probability research of the past few decades completely applies to any interesting problems, there should be at least a few more good years left.

Regardless, computer science would never actually die. It would just deadlock or attempt to solve the halting problem.

The biggest problem in the field is still that most universities don't offer separate Computer Science and Software Engineering majors. While there is substantial overlap, those are two distinct fields. It's much like the relationship between Physics and Mechanical Engineering. The IEEE is doing some good work to establish a standard curriculum for Software Engineering and get it implemented at more schools. That would provide a more attractive option to students who want to create software but don't enjoy the theoretical and mathematical side as much.

> One solution proposed for this lack of vision is that of renaming the subject to "informatics."

Renaming doesn't create visions but it should be noted that this is the usual term in French, German, Italian, Norwegian etc.

It's amazing that computer scientists never consider the possibility that they are wrong -- it's always students who are misguided.

In my view, computer scientists are wrong. They have limited the scope of the field to exclude application-level creativity. And in so doing, they have severely restricted the potential of the greatest invention of all time.

Nothing wrong with understanding computer architecture/algorithms/os/etc before you exercise your application-level creativity.

Anyone learning a sport has to master basic things before they go on to the advanced (eg in volleyball, you learn how to bump/set/spike before you learn how to run offensive plays). I think the same applies to CS.

But at least you do get to learn how to run offensive plays while still learning volleyball.

Personally speaking, in my 5 years of college (Drexel University from 1996-2001), most classes were 80-100% theory and 0-20% programming. None of it was application-level programming until the Software Engineering track in senior year. And you didn't have to have a full working program to pass either; it was enough to just show you made an effort.

I'd rather see a university that promoted the idea of letting self-motivated students do their own thing instead of just turning education into a checklist of required classes and credits.

There's no way a field of study should be telling you what to do with your study. Computer science has always been about application-level creativity, its about studying the methods by which computers can be made to do useful things. Coming up with these useful things is your job.

So how come we have people studying art, music, and writing in university?

And note that such studies do not normally involve learning about the chemicals used in the paint, the electronics used in sound equipment, or the software architecture of the word processor.

At the very least, students should be taught how to be social scientists so that they could figure what sorts of apps are likely to succeed in a particular environment.

I studied music. I took a 1-credit course in composition, and sang in the choir. The rest was studying history, theory, and technique.

I'm utterly unconvinced that formal studies in art and writing produce great artists. While I imagine it gives a lot of interested people, some of whom with great talent, an opportunity to explore their skills, the research and accumulated bodies of knowledge are mostly a cataloging of the works of talented people and not a how-to guide.

Formal studies in computer science teach the accumulated knowledge of building systems with algorithms. Its like learning the language, the grammar and vocabulary, a great writer needs. You're right, it is like learning about the chemicals in the paint, or more importantly the properties of your paint, your canvases and the brushes and techniques other artists have used. My point is that that is the useful knowledge.

Don't confuse universities offering a socially acceptable outlet for aspiring artists as a model for study and learning. You can probably build a great application without being a great computer scientist, but why would computer science want to be one of these sham fields of study when their are real tools and knowledge to be discovered.

So you think the work done at the MIT Media Lab is completely useless?

http://www.media.mit.edu/

See for example:

http://smg.media.mit.edu/

The media lab has very high standards for the computer science (or other field) knowledge of its students, and they produce great computer science research. Yes they orient their (entirely graduate) program around creativity - but at its core they expect real research in fields like computer science or psychology.

Your criticism of computer science, that they should eschew algorithms and theory in favour of applications, is entirely at odds with the media lab.

I don't understand why you want academia to steal your thunder so to speak, and take on the job of creating applications.

I used to be in academia and perhaps I would have stayed if it were more creative at the application level.

in all the drawing/art classes i have taken, one of the first things they usually cover is the impact of serious, academic study, on many famous artists. It is the process, focus, resources, and reflection/study provided in a university that transforms raw talent into significant capability.

I believe what you're referring to then is the need for an increase in informatics programs (like at my school www.informatics.indiana.edu). However, I should stipulate that this is use of a computer to do tasks related to information, not computer science per se.

You don't need to call it computer science. However, as far as I know, such undergraduate degrees don't exist.

You didn't look at Indiana. http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/academics/sample_curricul...

This is the undergraduate informatics curriculum which, as you'll notice, strictly includes social science courses throughout the first two years.

amen to that. one might say they've prematurely optimized on what is interesting about computation, before we had enough practical experience to really know.

I hope not. The mathematical aspects are about to get a whole lot more important to us.

Only like the phoenix.