One essay in Windley:
Academic research and cs innovation.
I have my heart. in those days
Software Practice & Expereience is countless, but there is no big masterpiece recently, and the price is also scary. Even the company's library has not booked it, and the continuous file is only 1997.
I always think that CS is a quite pragmatic discipline. It is not mathematics, pursuing pure abstraction; it is not physically, the pursuit of the essential principle of this world. CS is originally born for solving problems. Innovation is the foundation of the Survival of CS. Theory is also gradually accumulated in the process of solving the problem. Of course, it is undeniable that many CS theory has its own independent value, such as complexity and calculated, but these things are not all CS. The CS theory masters in that year did not fall in practice. For example, Knuth's Tex, Wirth of Pascal, Dijkstra's Algo60, McCarthy LISP, Iverson's APL, CODD SYSTEM R, and more. It can be seen that system innovation often brings theory of high songs. But it seems to be reversed. The things that CS doing CS in the university are getting more and more, and those who look at it is less and less. People who engage in software engineering seem to get some mathematics in their own articles (words with Windley, is in a special section of the Sierle point Greek symbol
), I am embarrassed. After reading those articles, I found out that it was a simple question, but the formalization of this problem spent a lot of space. This article is called the watering article. I don't want to write code in my function, I have a algorithm to prove its complexity and correctness. However, if these theories are not implemented and evaluated, how do you know that these algorithms have improved rooms and improved direction? A NP solution does not mean no practical value, a P's algorithm, nor is it a good algorithm. And now the article is quite strange, it is the definition and theorem of the large section, and finally tells us that a certainty can be improved everywhere. Those bodies seem to forget, they are not studying mathematics Ye
They can't use some mathematics things to get a practical problem. Compare the style of high grandfather, then abstract things can also be converted into specific examples, intuitive explanations, and problems that can be solved accordingly. What I still want is that why there is so many software engineering articles to express another simple concept? For example, Tony Hoare's {φ} [while b do p end] {ψ} is simple and clear, why N more articles must be written
Φ // (φ -> φ
I // (φ
I // b -> [p] (φ
I) // (φ
I //! B -> ψ). A familiar programming concept is expressed, can there be several programmers to understand? Describe the pre-condition, post-conditionation, the price is not a dead? Oh, watching the article is depressed, actually said that it is too miles away. Or continue to go back to read my article.
