It's just a label on a box to put people in. I don't really know what "science" or "engineering" is anymore--my SO is a neuroscience phd and has maintained "science is not synonymous with the scientific method; a lot of 'research' science is just collecting and publishing data and it does not need to be reproducible" which makes enough sense but challenges a lot of my priors.
Engineers don't traditionally even "build" anything and there are both upper-case and lower-case engineers in title and legal designation.
Comparatively and in sum the distinction between computer scientist and programmer is actually somewhat simple and quaint.
What we call things is important because that's how we convey meaning/definition of things. Because when we say "computer scientists" people will start comparing them to other scientists which is completely inaccurate.
>Engineers don't traditionally even "build" anything and there are both upper-case and lower-case engineers in title and legal designation.
Not sure what the difference is between Engineer and engineer (again, definitions are important), but I would be ok with equating programmers with other trades...people, like electricians, car mechanics, carpenters, etc. And then higher-end IT professionals (infra/data/application architects) would be akin to engineers, designing, but not building (for the most part).
It's just a label on a box to put people in. I don't really know what "science" or "engineering" is anymore--my SO is a neuroscience phd and has maintained "science is not synonymous with the scientific method; a lot of 'research' science is just collecting and publishing data and it does not need to be reproducible" which makes enough sense but challenges a lot of my priors.
Engineers don't traditionally even "build" anything and there are both upper-case and lower-case engineers in title and legal designation.
Comparatively and in sum the distinction between computer scientist and programmer is actually somewhat simple and quaint.