Last night I went to a Birkbeck training session for prospective mentors. I did not realise before I turned up that all, or almost all, the would-be mentors would be MSc Computer Science graduates.
In the end that fact alone turned what could have been a pretty dull way to spend a Friday night into something quite interesting – I don’t get to talk to developers very often at all, and now I was in a room full of them.
And one of them – a chief executive of a start-up with a fascinating back-story (but he didn’t say ‘put that on your blog’, so I won’t) – told me what he regards as the best way for a would be developer to get their breakthrough job: go to github, find a high profile project from a commercial outfit (he suggested the Chrome browser from Google) and fix a few bugs.
His claim was that he knew several people – including two with jobs at Google – who had got work in this way. I have no reason to think he was doing anything other than telling the truth.
Interestingly, he was pretty surprised when I talked about the poor employment record of computer science graduates – there plainly is some sort of disconnect between the firms recruiting (who say they struggle to fill jobs) and the graduates (who struggle to get recruited).
- The Top 10 Schools In The World For App Developers [RANKED] (businessinsider.com)
- PhD Web Science University of Southampton (phdland.com)
- Can Obama Convince High Schools To Teach Kids To Code? (forbes.com)
- What Hackers Need (recoding.blogspot.com)
- Want a job? Major in computer science (utsandiego.com)
- NYC to teach computer science and software engineering in 20 schools (computinged.wordpress.com)
- ‘Teach computing’ primaries urged (bbc.co.uk)
I am in York this week, being a student and preparing for the literature review seminar I am due to give on Friday – the first staging post on the PhD route, at which I have to persuade the department I have been serious about reading around my subject.
Today I went to a departmental seminar, presented by Professor Ulrike Hahne of Birkbeck College (and latterly of Cardiff University). She spoke on the nature of “similarity” – as is the nature of these things it was a quick rattle through a complex subject and if the summary that follows is inaccurate, then I am to blame and not Professor Hahne.
Professor Hahne is a psychologist but she has worked with computer scientists and so her seminar did cut into computer science issues. She began by stating that it was fair to say that all things are equally the same (or different) – in the sense that one can find an infinite number of things by which two things can be categorised in the same way (object A is weighs less that 1kg, object B weighs less than 1kg, they both weigh less than 2kgs and so on). I am not sure I accept this argument in its entirity – in what way is an object different from itself? But that’s a side issue, because her real point was that similarity and difference is a product of human cognition, which I can broadly accept.
So how do we measure similarity and difference? Well the “simplest” way is to measure the “distance” between two stimuli in the standard geometric way – this is how we measure the difference between colours in a colour space (about which more later) ie., the root of the sum of the squares of the distances. This concept has even been developed into the “universal law of generalisation”. This idea has achieved much but has major deficiencies.
Professor Hahne outlined some of the alternatives before describing her interest (and defence of) the idea that the key to difference was the number of mental transformations required to change one thing from another – for instance, how different is a square from a triangle? Two transformations are required, first to think of the triangle and then to replace the square with the triangle and so on.
In a more sophisticated way, the issue is the Kolmogorov complexity of the transformation. The shorter the program we can write to make the transformation, the more similar the objects are.
This, it strikes me, has an important application in computer science, or it least it could have. To go back to the colour space issue again – when I wrote the Perl module Image::Pngslimmer I had to write a lot of code that computed geometrical distances between colour points – a task that Perl is very poor at, maths is slow there. This was to implement the so-called “median cut” algorithm (pleased to say that the Wikipedia article on the median cut algorithm cites my code as an example, and it wasn’t even me who edited it to that, at least as far as I can remember!) where colours are quantised to those at the centre of “median cut boxes” in the colour space. Perhaps there is a much simpler way to make this transformation and so more quickly compress the PNG?
I asked Professor Hahne about this and she confirmed that her collaborator Professor Nick Chater of Warwick University is interested in this very question. When I have got this week out the way I may have a look at his published papers and see if there is anything interesting there.
I thought I would list some of the books – other than the set texts – that I think new students (for 2011/12 intake) to Birkbeck ought to read. Sadly, for me, I didn’t really read any of them until the second year – but they are still useful.
This is will probably be an ongoing series.
Not a book about C++ at all – and very hard going – but Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs will teach you a lot about computer programming and the fundamentals of computing.
For Fundamentals of Computing
Has to be The Annotated Turing: really a fantastic book, well written as both an exposition of the subject matter and of Turing’s landmark paper.
For operating systems
I would like to recommend The Design of the Unix Operating System: but you may find it hard to get copies of it (though there are few in the Birkbeck library). The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System might do instead but is close to being out of print also. Understanding the Linux Kernel is much cheaper but I think is far too complex as an introductory text.
A cheap and cheerful alternative might be Lions’ Commentary on UNIX with Source Code – which is close to 40 years old, somewhat rudimentary and describes an even more primitive version of Unix than “The Design of…” but does have sources that make it clear how the OS really works.
I won’t recommend a book on UML or the UP because I hate them both and have yet to find a book that doesn’t make that worse.
- Open evening at Birkbeck, University of London (postgrad.com)
- Birkbeck welcomes coalition financial review for part-time students (postgrad.com)
- Birkbeck joins in Adult Learners’ Week (postgrad.com)
- Students interested in PhDs in cognitive development (psychadvise.wordpress.com)