>>11392113This post isn't exactly in good faith, since it's definitely skewed with "here's my curriculum and here's what I think CS is" and really, iot's just their opinion on software development.
>algebraEE's do not learn abstract algebra in the undergrad canon at all, and especially not for any ABET accreditation standards
>probability theoryLMAO you need results from probability in control, signals, and your baby information theory class, but you don't actually touch probability as you would in a mathematics class, and you don't make any sort of meaningful statements about randomness as a fundamental tool in solving problems like in CS
>calculusnominally, but the calculus in EE is really straightforward, and most of it ends up turning to lazy arithmetic and basic algebra tricks
>CS majors learn a lot of abstractionsI feel like you have this image in your head that CS major, or at least those in any good program learn frameworks built on hardware. This is not really true. The venues are this
1) theory, where the focus is solving hard problems that are either pure or applied and show up everywhere across math and engineering
2) systems, which the focus is on application of theory to turn noncomputational materials into computational systems. The instruction set doesn't mean a damn if we can't ascribe symbols meaning via a compiler. None of the circuitry works if we don't establish bus policy, memory structure, disk algorithms, caching interfaces, etc..
>EE actually understand what got abstracted awayif you sit and talk to an EE for 10 minutes it's clear that they understand nearly none of this even when it's dumbed down
>it's easy to turn an EE into a software devsoftware dev is easy shit (and it is NOT CS), and I've still seen EE's fuck it up easily
>it's hard to turn a CS into a hardware developernot really. I've seen a fairly large amount of CS people who were into parallelization and systems go into FPGA and CPU research.