Skip to main content

Computer Science or Software Engineering

This week I was reading the results of the annual Developer Survey from the excellent tech forum Stack Overflow (available here).

 I was struck by a chart about educational background, excerpted below.

The top line gathers three different streams of technology education into one: Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Software Engineering. There are profound similarities between the three, which is why they are grouped, yet also significant differences, in their approaches, assumptions and end goals.

What struck me was the realization that, despite my strong formation in the Computer Science stream, over time I lean more and more to the Software Engineering stream now.


I was also struck, to a lesser extent, on how low the Math/Stats undergrad was in the chart. Anecdotally, at least, so many of my bosses over the years have been from a Math background, but maybe it was the path of an earlier generation.

But back to CompSci vs Software Engineering.

I finished both a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree in Computer Science. Looking back, I would say that the education I received from this stream tended toward the more theoretical. It drilled deeply into the mathematical, physical and digital underpinnings of computer technology. It explored complexity and efficiency (at least in my Algorithms-centered specialization). It tackled hard problems with a goal of pushing the limits of our knowledge.

To my CompSci eyes, the Software Engineering stream is less focused on pushing the bounds of knowledge and more about formalizing and productizing what is learned and discovered, making it marketable and maintainable.

Does that sound crass? That's not my intention. I now find Software Engineering more compelling and interesting, peronally, than CompSci.

Now, after more than a dozen years in a variety of IT jobs, I find that I think more like a Software Engineer than a Computer Scientist. Is this a natural evolution given the reality of building software for a living rather than researching in an academic setting? No doubt that is one influence.

Looking back to my CompSci Master's thesis, in which I studied the effects of some theories as applied in a Software Engineering context, I can see that this new mindset is not so new. It has hints stretching back to those days, rather than just being an adjustment to make it easier to do my day-to-day work.

Let me give an illustration of some of the differences I see between Software Engineering and Computer Science.

Imagine we want to tackle creating a Sudoku board generator. Sudoku is a number-puzzle in which a 9x9 grid of numbers must be filled in such that the digits 1 to 9 appear exactly once in each row, in each column, and in each of 9 sub-squares.

My CompSci side would be interested in writing the algorithm at the heart of the problem. It would focus on questions of data structures, of loops and recursions, of back-tracking when a conflict is generated. And then that side of me would want to make it as efficient as possible. It would perform a Big-O analysis. It might consider hardware improvements. It might draw on the latest human-computer interaction theory in designing user input strategies.

My Software Engineering side would not reject any of that as unimportant. But it would approach the problem with the long-term testability and maintainability of the design and architecture in mind. It would create abstractions of the constraints or rules behind a Sudoku board. It would encapsulate data and actions into appropriate sub-modules. It would make decisions about the structure of the application as much as the structure of the algorithms under the hood.

It's a question of the priorities and emphases of each discipline.

If you are looking into which educational program is right for you, get the real and specific differences in each stream from the schools you are considering. For example, the excellent University of Waterloo describes what each flavor means to them here.

Popular posts from this blog

How to do Git Rebase in Eclipse

This is an abbreviated version of a fuller post about Git Rebase in Eclipse. See the longer one here : One side-effect of merging Git branches is that it leaves a Merge commit. This can create a history view something like: The clutter of parallel lines shows the life spans of those local branches, and extra commits (nine in the above screen-shot, marked by the green arrows icon). Check out this extreme-case history:  http://agentdero.cachefly.net/unethicalblogger.com/images/branch_madness.jpeg Merge Commits show all the gory details of how the code base evolved. For some teams, that’s what they want or need, all the time. Others may find it unnecessarily long and cluttered. They prefer the history to tell the bigger story, and not dwell on tiny details like every trivial Merge-commit. Git Rebase offers us 2 benefits over Git Merge: First, Rebase allows us to clean up a set of local commits before pushing them to the shared, central repository. For this

Java 8: Rewrite For-loops using Stream API

Java 8 Tip: Anytime you write a Java For-loop, ask yourself if you can rewrite it with the Streams API. Now that I have moved to Java 8 in my work and home development, whenever I want to use a For-loop, I write it and then see if I can rewrite it using the Stream API. For example: I have an object called myThing, some Collection-like data structure which contains an arbitrary number of Fields. Something has happened, and I want to set all of the fields to some common state, in my case "Hidden"

Git Reset in Eclipse

Using Git and the Eclipse IDE, you have a series of commits in your branch history, but need to back up to an earlier version. The Git Reset feature is a powerful tool with just a whiff of danger, and is accessible with just a couple clicks in Eclipse. In Eclipse, switch to the History view. In my example it shows a series of 3 changes, 3 separate committed versions of the Person file. After commit 6d5ef3e, the HEAD (shown), Index, and Working Directory all have the same version, Person 3.0.

Code Coverage in C#.NET Unit Tests - Setting up OpenCover

The purpose of this post is to be a brain-dump for how we set up and used OpenCover and ReportGenerator command-line tools for code coverage analysis and reporting in our projects. The documentation made some assumptions that took some digging to fully understand, so to save my (and maybe others') time and effort in the future, here are my notes. Our project, which I will call CEP for short, includes a handful of sub-projects within the same solution. They are a mix of Web APIs, ASP MVC applications and Class libraries. For Unit Tests, we chose to write them using the MSTest framework, along with the Moq mocking framework. As the various sub-projects evolved, we needed to know more about the coverage of our automated tests. What classes, methods and instructions had tests exercising them, and what ones did not? Code Coverage tools are conveniently built-in for Visual Studio 2017 Enterprise Edition, but not for our Professional Edition installations. Much less for any Commun

Scala Collections: A Group of groupBy() Examples

Scala provides a rich Collections API. Let's look at the useful groupBy() function. What does groupBy() do? It takes a collection, assesses each item in that collection against a discriminator function, and returns a Map data structure. Each key in the returned map is a distinct result of the discriminator function, and the key's corresponding value is another collection which contains all elements of the original one that evaluate the same way against the discriminator function. So, for example, here is a collection of Strings: val sports = Seq ("baseball", "ice hockey", "football", "basketball", "110m hurdles", "field hockey") Running it through the Scala interpreter produces this output showing our value's definition: sports: Seq[String] = List(baseball, ice hockey, football, basketball, 110m hurdles, field hockey) We can group those sports names by, say, their first letter. To do so, we need a disc