>>14174055>We needed you for one offs things and those things are already hereThis is your brain on "open sourcing work = your field is 'implemented' and to be used by people"
It's as ridiculous as saying electrodynamics physicists are the cooks that invented the transistor for a one off design that's just used for real design projects. The core computational problems that are on the forefront of engineering are...well, core. It's not that a computer makes it easier. It's that a lot of these problems cannot be solved without understanding computation. Most of these problems can't be solved with the crystalized knowledge in the form of codebases.
>anyone can use muh languageslanguages are just a tool to implement ideas. their construction is an interesting and practical topic, but no computer scientist prides a language as a product.
>There is just nothing in comp sci that everyone else cant replace you in in 3 months.You say this, but algorithmics revolutionized engineering in a way that is unavoidable. All electronic physical design is done by...classic combinatorial optimization algorithms in industry standard reference manuals published by CS PhD's in the EECS departments (
http://vlsicad.eecs.umich.edu/KLMH/). You can't even make a computer without using computers lmfao.
I know this is partially bait, but people here really overestimate the worth of their undergrad knowledge in engineering in the face of computerization, and they underestimate the power of a smart algorithmicist who is seriously interested in solving traditional engineering problems...which is to say many of them.
Your only defense is a shoddy appeal to credentialism which isn't even true.
Software devs are not necessarily software engineers, and neither of these guys are computer scientists. Computer scientists are scientists who publish papers, libraries, hardware, and other pieces of engineering and math that is generally useful.
