|go ahead... be a heretic|
|( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml )||Need Help??|
whoa dep! The assertion as it stands makes no pejorative comment on the usefulness of the degree relative to the crafts! It merely seeks to compare the two. :)
I think it's obvious to anyone who reads that literary criticism or equivalent work experience is very necessary to good literature of all sorts. Sure, this can often take the form of working in a team with an editor who does have a degree in the field, but that an author can produce good books without it is a funny assertion.
Ditto the lowly coder. Sure, some rank amateurs have gotten lucky. But in general the analogy stands, software will be vastly improved when a CSci type is attached to the project. Now editors and computer scientists may not be able to come up with great plots and characters or architect applications; their own prose may be stilted and clumsy, their own programming may be similarly awful; but this is not their role in the work at hand.
They are there to look at some of the problem areas, algorithms that go haywire, sentences that lack verbs. That sort of thing. If I had to get a code review, I'd prefer a CSci major over Joe Hacker who doesn't know a bubble sort from a linked list. Similarly, if I were authoring a textbook, novel, or self help book, I would want someone with solid lit skills to be involved pre-press.
So I'd say it's a perfect analogy, even if it is a troll which meant to cast aspersion on CSci majors and Lit Crit types.
In reply to (ichimunki) re x 2: Usefulness of CS (discussion)