Talk:Computing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Computing article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Clarification

I wonder about the subject of kernel. should there be an article on that? or should it be interwoven with operating system or should it be a subpage to operating system?? Im wondering this since Ive seen many links to kernel, and wonder if the plain title kernel is appropiate?

If you're not sure, make it a top-level page. It can always be redirected to a subpage later. At some point the Wiki Gnomes will be putting in 0.92 of useModWiki and doing a lot of renaming and other housekeeping in the process. I'm guessing that any gratuitous redirects will get cleaned up then as well. --loh (2001-07-27)

OK, so IEEE is not 100% computer-oriented, and the ISO deals with other things, but rather than removing the links, perhaps put down information regarding them instead? And if we want to get nitpicky about it, ASC deals only with how computers impact surveying, so perhaps that should be moved underneath "Businesss Computing" instead of "Professional Organisations"? TimmyD 21:39 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry for stepping on your toes. I actually did add info regarding IEEE. The situation is more complicated with ISO, not only is it primarily non-computing (it is the #1 global standards body!), it is also not a "professional organization" in the usual sense. Yaronf 22:31 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

You're right in that ISO is not entirely computing, but they have released some of the most influential standards for comuting, such as MPEG, as well as standards for how to manage programming/computing projects. It's true that they're not a "professional organisation" in the usual sense, but they certainly need some sort of "honorable mention" on this page ... TimmyD 04:42 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

I hope the latest version does it. Yaronf 07:57 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

Oooo ... I like that ... now why didn't I think about creating a separate section for Standards? lol TimmyD 08:10 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

It would be great if someone would write an article to go with this list of links? Perhaps I'll have to put up some WikiMoney --(talk to)BozMo 10:33, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

"Mechatronics"??? Does this deserve a top-level heading? I think it would make more sense under "classes of computers." The term I am more accustomed to seeing for this class is "Embedded systems." Jim H. 05:20, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Why was rational number equated with "infinite precision"? A rational number is any number expressable as a fraction in which the numerator and denominator are integers, such as 7/3. Michael Hardy 21:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Computing Vs Computer Science

The lists on this page don't seem to match the definition. What is the word for the FIELD of computer hardware and software design, manufacturing, and sales, if not "computing"? (It's not "computer science" because that has a specialized meaning.) The lists on this page, as for computer companies, are not specific to "the operation and [use of computers]".... [May 10 2005, Liberty ]

you're right. Bunch of us were talking in wikipedia about computer science vs computing, so we decided we needed a comp-sci-stub, well, to use with comp-sci stubs, which were labeled as computing. comp-stub was pointing to Computing, so we kinda needed to change the heading. i'll work on it some more during the week :) (Feel free to make changes of course ;)

Project2501a 07:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category

Category:Computing has more than 150 articles in the main cagtegory. Many of these should just be in subcategories. But I don't know a lot about the subject. Can anyone help with this? Thanks. Maurreen 14:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly duckling

This article is basically nothing more than a list that more or less covers what Category:Computing already does. Perhaps we should redirect there? Unless there's anyone who wants to add substantial content to this article, I see no reason to maintain a laundry list that duplicates what Mediawiki already categorizes for us. -- mattb @ 2006-11-02T16:45Z

I agree about the fact that this article is currently a long list with not much interest. I disagree with the proposed redirection. Instead, the long list should be removed and the article should be developped since, I think, computing is a branch of computer science studying some fundamental aspects.
I would propose to keep just the introduction (and the nice ACM citation) and remove the following listing. The rest will need further developments.
As an example, I think the current sentence:
"In short, the concept of computing relates to human knowledge and activities which develop and use computer technologies"
is a bit restrictive. See for example theoretical computer science or digital physics for two examples which are not or try not to be related to computer technologies, but rather to computations as some kind of natural phenomena...
--Powo 09:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with the statement that computing is a branch of computer science studying some fundamental aspects. In fact, I would argue that quite the opposite is true. I happened to come here now because I was looking for a concise definition of computing to use in a document I'm writing for the Computer History Museum. A brief review of that short article and the Museum site it links to should be enough to demonstrate that computing is generally viewed as the umbrella term, not computer science. The latter, as its WP article states, is limited to the study of the theoretical foundations of certain aspects of computing. Computing on the other hand covers a much wider array of subjects including hardware, software, CPUs, computer memory, computer networking, research into those technologies, computer product development, the computer business, computer-related education, and the application of computing technology in society. Chris Loosley 09:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, I dont know... If I remember well the paper "Computing as a discipline" from the ACM Task Force on the Core of Computer Science (you can "google scholar" it), they propose that the "core of computer science" should be called the "discipline of computing". Regards, --Powo 05:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
If we are going to look to the ACM and IEEE for guidance, here's a later reference -- Computing Curricula 2001 (CC2001) (pdf). "This document represents the final report of the Computing Curricula 2001 project (CC2001) -- a joint undertaking of the ... (IEEE-CS) and the ... (ACM) to develop curricular guidelines for undergraduate programs in computing" -- see Executive Summary. Note particularly Principle #1 in Chapter 4:
Computing is a broad field that extends well beyond the boundaries of computer science. A single report that covers only computer science cannot address the full range of issue that colleges and universities must consider as they seek to address their computing curricula. Additional reports in this series will be required to cover other computing disciplines.
Computing is used as an umbrella term throughout, and see Appendix A -- and this is just an undergraduate curriculum! Also, note particularly the use of computing in section 3.2 on Cultural Changes, in the second and third bullets on The dramatic growth of computing throughout the world and The growing economic influence of computing technology. Incidentally, the 4th bullet provides some historical context for Denning's 1989 report, pointing out that times have changed since then. So I think we can treat this document's usage of terminology as more authoritative. Chris Loosley 10:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I was wrong. Thanks for educating me on this one, and thanks for the ref which is nice. I'd like to read you paper for the museum once it is finished! :-) Regards, --Powo 23:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I am working on the nomination process for the Museum's Fellow Awards in 2007. I'll post a message on your Talk page when it's public.
Regarding the ideal future for this page, I believe it should become the major article associated with the computing category. I am not volunteering to write it, but if we simply augmented the present reference to "Computing as a Discipline" with a link to CC2001, maybe someone else will read that paper and contribute a summary. Also, many terms (like building, policy, game, law) have both broad and narrow meanings, so I think it would be right to retain the narrower definition, as long as the context is explained. Chris Loosley 21:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Just after posting the comment above, I found an even better reference: Computing Curricula 2005 -- The Overview Report is the final report of the joint ACM/IEEE work that began with the CC2001 report. Chapter 2 contains definitive statements about What is Computing, and could serve as the basis for a WP article. Some fair use quotes would probably be OK, or it might even be possible to obtain permission from ACM to quote from the report. Chris Loosley 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now edited the article's introduction and added references, to reflect the discussion above. I know that much more work is needed, but this is all I have time for at the moment. Anyone reading this, please go ahead and add more content to the article. The ACM/IEEE paper is an excellent resource. Chris Loosley 03:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)