From a discussion on /.
There is even a bizarre camp that actually acknowledges the need for computer programming, but turns my ‘any language’ argument on its head to advocate the students do ‘scientific programming’ using Excel because it is ‘easy,’ ubiquitous, and students are familiar with it. They argue Excel is ‘surprisingly powerful’ with flow control and allows you to focus on the science rather than syntax.
As a computational scientist (and with both a physical and a life science background), that such arguments still happen is appalling. IMO, all scientists, especially those remotely connected to theory and/or computational science should be given the opportunity to learn some formal software engineering and computer science principles (for physical chemists, bioinformaticians, etc is should be mandatory to do some courses). Everything I know, which is not much, is self taught. It’s the princples and practices that are important, not the specifics. Have seen way too much noodly, unmaintainable code and bad hacks over the years (including my own).
Perhaps things have changed, but apparently not that much, and given attitudes towards software engineering in academia, I seriously doubt it.
Technorati Tags: Software Engineering, Programming, Science, Education
4 Comments
Sad part is that for half the world (well probably more than half), bioinformatics = BLAST
It's the limitations you bump up against using Excel/Word that teach you why R/LaTeX are important and useful. I think a little course on data hygeine would be a good addition to any science curriculum, but I also think Excel's OK for a once-off or lightweight analysis.
Still dont get the excel part
They should be though more than a simple program like excel
Still dont get the excel part
They should be though more than a simple program like excel
One Trackback
[...] few days ago, bbgm wrote about Programming and Science Education and how people advocating that students use Excel (or similar) instead of “real” [...]