[samirmenon]

You could take that one step further. CS has, in it's modern incarnation, only been around for ~90 years. CS, as it is taught at the undergraduate level, has changed dramatically in recent years, and will continue into the future.

Math, on the other hand, has been around for thousands of years, is relatively stable, and unlikely to become obsolete in the way a scrum certification, or even a machine learning algorithm, will.

Of course, 'CS fundamentals' usually end up at a very close intersection with math. I'm just suggesting that mathematics has an even deeper level of the 'stability' you referenced.

[learc83]

>Of course, 'CS fundamentals' usually end up at a very close intersection with math. I'm just suggesting that mathematics has an even deeper level of the 'stability' you referenced.

I agree with you completely. The parts of CS that are stable are the parts that are based on rigorous mathematical foundations. I think that teaching things like Object Oriented Programming strays too far from a rigorous foundation--away from math and even engineering into craft (which belongs in vocational training).

When I look back, the classes that I learned the most from were, Discrete Math, Automata, Design and Analysis of Algorithms, and Programming Language Concepts (which went into the academic side of programming language research more than what was currently in use in industry).

[sanderjd]

I mostly agree, but for me, the line gets blurry around the applied areas that have a lot of depth: computer architecture, operating systems, networking protocols, compilers, and databases. In all of those, I learned a lot about theory, practice, and engineering trade-offs, all of which was worthwhile. I didn't study it myself, but I would imagine distributed systems is (or should be) a similarly rich subject. I also learned a ton from studying the history of computing, which I wish would be more of a focus for those entering the industry.

[learc83]

Good point. Many of the area's you mentioned do have a lot of formal underpinnings, and there are large bodies of research to look to for guidance.

Computer architecture is big E Engineering, done by Computer Engineers for example. The networks class I took was also one of the most math heavy, and most of the book was supported by proofs. In addition, we spent the first half of databases working with only relational algebra.

If you look through a textbook on any of the subjects you mentioned, and compare it to say a book on design patterns, the distinction between math/engineering and craft is pretty clear.

>I also learned a ton from studying the history of computing, which I wish would be more of a focus for those entering the industry.

We went over the history in depth in my program--from Turing to Konrad Zuse to Backus. I also found it immensely useful.