So what is the difference between a software engineer and computerscientist?

[The Real Andy]

Computer scientists use Linux, software engineers use windows?

Oops, i just realised I was trying to be funny and that most wont see
my sense of humour.

Nevermind. IMHO, an engineer models known real world applications
whilst a scientist researches new methods if implementing real world
applications. Most engineers are scientists in themselves in one way
or another.

 

[Colin Paul Gloster]

Grant Edwards wrote in
:
"Ah. That's how you know a field isn't really science: it
includes "science" in its title.

For instance, compre "political science" and "social science"
with "physics", "chemistry" or "astronomy".

1/2 "



So is physics "really science" unlike "physical sciences" (
WWW.DCU.Ie/faculties.shtml ); is chemistry "really science" unlike
"chemical sciences" ( WWW.DCU.Ie/faculties.shtml ); and is astronomy
"really science" unlike "Astronomical Science" (
WWW2.Keck.Hawaii.edu/library/biblios/aokeck.php ); and is "Space
Science" ( WWW.IRV.Se ) not "really science"?

 

[Roberto Waltman]

Ah. That's how you know a field isn't really science: it
includes "science" in its title.

For instance, compre "political science" and "social science"
with "physics", "chemistry" or "astronomy".

That's a keeper. And to the Lewin/Colin dichotomy one could add:

"The power of acute observation is commonly called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Roberto Waltman
(Who really,really,really would like to be a computer scientist...)

 

[Lanarcam]

PeteS a écrit :

Because I have yet to define it

A software engineer writes bugs in a hardware company.
A computer scientist writes bugs in a software company.

A software engineer writes software that is not sold
but bundled with the real thing.
A computer scientist writes software that is sold and
that is the real thing.

;-)

 

[John Larkin]

PeteS a écrit :
A software engineer writes bugs in a hardware company.
A computer scientist writes bugs in a software company.

A software engineer writes software that is not sold
but bundled with the real thing.
A computer scientist writes software that is sold and
that is the real thing.

;-)

A computer scientist writes software that is provably correct but does
nothing. A software engineer writes software that is buggy but does
something.

Or something.

John

 

[Alex Colvin]

The computer scientist theoretically knows how to implement efficient

computer-software architectures while the software engineer practically
knows how to waste this.

Theoretically there is no difference between theory and practice.
Practically, however, there is.

Computer Science, like Christian Science, believes that faith and virtue
overcome all ills.

A Computer Engineer is more like a Railroad Engineer, concerned with
handling, timely arrival, and the course of the tracks.

Software engineer is a nearly meaningless term. In states which license
engineers, there is rarely any such license. I myself am a software
engineer. You could be one too.

 

[PeteS]

A computer scientist writes software that is provably correct but does
nothing. A software engineer writes software that is buggy but does
something.

Or something.

John

Embedded engineers do software that operates their unit correctly, such
that it is not obvious there *is* any software in the unit.

This is true computer science.

Cheers

PeteS

 

[PeteS]

Oops, i just realised I was trying to be funny and that most wont see
my sense of humour.

Nevermind. IMHO, an engineer models known real world applications
whilst a scientist researches new methods if implementing real world
applications. Most engineers are scientists in themselves in one way
or another.

Actually, I see the humour; imo, those doomed to writing code for
Windows need more training, but have less; those writing for *nix / *nux
need less training but have more

It should be noted I have written a lot of code on posix platforms

Cheers

PeteS

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science

"Still others maintain that software cannot be engineered at all."

Seeing as their "Major achievements" stub is a little sparse, out of
the kindness of my heart I'll give 'em a LAW!. Scientists love LAWS.
They can have (drum roll) ... --MOORES-- LAW.
Fits in nicely
john

Well, I don't like Cole's Law. I'd rather have cottage cheese.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

Grant Edwards wrote in
:
"Ah. That's how you know a field isn't really science: it
includes "science" in its title.

For instance, compre "political science" and "social science"
with "physics", "chemistry" or "astronomy".

So is physics "really science" unlike "physical sciences" (
WWW.DCU.Ie/faculties.shtml ); is chemistry "really science" unlike
"chemical sciences" ( WWW.DCU.Ie/faculties.shtml ); and is astronomy
"really science" unlike "Astronomical Science" (
WWW2.Keck.Hawaii.edu/library/biblios/aokeck.php ); and is "Space
Science" ( WWW.IRV.Se ) not "really science"?

Maybe somebody should come up with "God science" - then maybe we'd
learn a thing or three! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

A software engineer writes bugs in a hardware company.
A computer scientist writes bugs in a software company.

A software engineer writes software that is not sold
but bundled with the real thing.
A computer scientist writes software that is sold and
that is the real thing.

;-)

A computer scientist writes software that is provably correct but does
nothing. A software engineer writes software that is buggy but does
something.

Or something.[/QUOTE]

;-)

A scriptkiddie writes "software that is buggy". A software engineer
writes bug-free softtware because he designs it before he enters it
at the console. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise, Plainclothes Hippie]

Embedded engineers do software that operates their unit correctly, such
that it is not obvious there *is* any software in the unit.

This is true computer science.

Well, dang it! Now you've gone and confused the issue! ;-P

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Maybe somebody should come up with "God science" - then maybe we'd
learn a thing or three! ;-)

Scientology - no science and bugger all ology.

 

[Grant Edwards]

Yes, I wrote that. Followed by a 1/2 smiley indicating it was
somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

But I didn't write that, even though it was attributed to me.

Maybe somebody should come up with "God science" - then maybe we'd
learn a thing or three! ;-)

Something like "Creation Science"?

 

[Terry Given]

Yes, I wrote that. Followed by a 1/2 smiley indicating it was
somewhat tongue-in-cheek.




But I didn't write that, even though it was attributed to me.




Something like "Creation Science"?

isnt that like fighting for peace, or (my favourite) fucking for virginity?

Cheers
Terry

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

Yes, I wrote that. Followed by a 1/2 smiley indicating it was
somewhat tongue-in-cheek.


But I didn't write that, even though it was attributed to me.


Something like "Creation Science"?

Well, I'm currently working on refining my "Stupid Design" theory. ;-D

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich the Philosophizer]

isnt that like fighting for peace, or (my favourite) fucking for virginity?

Does the universe Taste Great, or is it Less Filling?

What bothers me is the brain-lock on both sides that refuses to consider
the possibility that it's something in between, i.e, "God" created a
Universe that's evolving. I have no problem with that either way.

Thanks!
Rich

 

[Terry Given]

Well, I'm currently working on refining my "Stupid Design" theory. ;-D

Cheers!
Rich

that sounds like a good idea. Here, let me flesh it out for you:

Stupid Design:

- God is an incompetent, bungling fool (eg creates humans flawed, so we
cant keep the 10 commandments, then changes his mind about them ergo new
testament)

- God is also astonishingly insecure (eg 1st commandment)

- This omniscient idiot then designs a human being so poorly that 3/4 of
all pregnancies self-terminate in the first month because the
prospective foetus is FUBAR.

- of the ones that actually make it out the birth canal, all manner of
hideous monstrosities occur - retards, mutants, hydrocephalics,
politicians et al

- And in a fit of Inspired Stupidity, God placed a sewer next door to
the playground


ID is just drivel. I especially like their "irreducible complexity"
argument - we dont understand it so God must have done it. Morons.

Interesting to see ted haggard is now 100% heterosexual. Yeah Right....

Cheers
Terry

 

[Homer J Simpson]

What bothers me is the brain-lock on both sides that refuses to consider
the possibility that it's something in between, i.e, "God" created a
Universe that's evolving. I have no problem with that either way.

Or that there is a god but it couldn't give a rat's ass what we say or do.
Or that it likes it when humans are evil and cruel. I've seen little
evidence to the contrary.

After all, if there WAS a just and benevolent god, Juliet Prowse would be
alive and Jesse Helms would be dead.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Interesting to see ted haggard is now 100% heterosexual. Yeah Right....

Was it Jay Leno who said Haggard was 'cured' by excess, like when your dad
catches you smoking and makes you smoke the whole pack? I wonder what was
smoking on old Ted?