[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.