Shared publicly  - 
 
Two of my colleagues, Nicklas Lundblad and Betsy Masiello, wrote pieces, http://noisesociety.com/nicklaslundblad.se/?p=624, and http://www.betsym.org/blog/2011/12/04/teach-not-coding-but-architecture/, respectively, that relate very naturally to the piece I posted on CS+X , for all X http://www.xconomy.com/new-york/2012/01/18/cs-x-for-all-x/ They add to the discussion of computer scientist should be taught and what all students should study.
9
6
Alfred Spector's profile photoNick Bowen's profile photoZiyuan Yao's profile photoJames Salsman's profile photo
5 comments
 
I'm in the impression that instead of CS+X, we should do X+CS (letting students of all majors know some programming). This is partly because computational approaches to some problems don't work as well as direct physical observation. For example, computational protein folding prediction is not as accurate as NMR and X-ray crystallography. For another example, computational linguistics alone (without human intervention) can't perfectly understand natural language.

I think hardware improvement (with software playing an assistive role) is the ultimate approach to all problems physical, biological and cognitive.
 
I think sometimes one way, and sometimes the other. Can go either way -- often depends on institution. "+" is commutative :-)
 
Hi.... hope you are doing well...... i lost your email, can you send me one, i have a question.
 
Yes. It might become as important as our human language. The future of work might be in larger parts equal to design of concepts and coding them. This is a development I see at least in my research area Synthetic Biology. The physical lab work gets substituted by robots. Work is about design and coding.
Add a comment...