> "But saying "programming is math" is like saying "biology is physics"; it might be true at some level, but it is not often very useful."
I agree and actually thought about making this analogy. I think some people like to debate these things for philosophical reasons, and this kind of hierarchy of fields is of interest to such people. Others seem to approach it from a more pragmatic and anecdotal perspective and often take issue with the classification of their field as, e.g. "math-based" or "language-based", as though it reflects on their talents (required or actual) as an individual.
The reaction of the latter group reminds me of pg's essay:
As programmers, we use lots of techniques and where many hats. We sometimes do engineering, design, math, sometimes we are detectives (especially when debugging or coming up with requirements), sometimes we are writers and communicators.
That is why I react to "programming is math" so negatively; it belittles the other tasks that I have to do much more often than math.
I agree and actually thought about making this analogy. I think some people like to debate these things for philosophical reasons, and this kind of hierarchy of fields is of interest to such people. Others seem to approach it from a more pragmatic and anecdotal perspective and often take issue with the classification of their field as, e.g. "math-based" or "language-based", as though it reflects on their talents (required or actual) as an individual.
The reaction of the latter group reminds me of pg's essay:
http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html