[HN Gopher] Computer System Engineering
___________________________________________________________________
Computer System Engineering
Author : hackitup7
Score : 273 points
Date : 2021-01-16 08:03 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (ocw.mit.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (ocw.mit.edu)
| mavelikara wrote:
| Ever so often these courses, without video lectures, from
| prestigious universities come up here and gets upvoted to the
| front page. There will be some discussion by people who attended
| these courses in those universities.
|
| What is the point of posting and upvoting these course pages
| here? The most charitable answer I can find is that it informs
| that there exists such a body of knowledge. The uncharitable one
| is that it lets people gloat about their alma maters here in the
| comments.
|
| Any other explanations, anyone?
| krastanov wrote:
| I personally avoid video lectures and prefer the written
| materials. I get that video works better for some people, but I
| do not understand how this can be the case: non interactive
| video is so much worse than text and diagrams.
| liaukovv wrote:
| Verbal communication contains a lot of information about
| relative importance of information
| brians wrote:
| This is the class that made my career. The idea that humanities
| sorts of skills - critical reading, analysis, discussion -- could
| contribute to the work of systems engineering was a revelation.
| That I had the knack for it, and that it turns out to be the core
| work of engineering, I found later.
|
| The THERAC paper, the X11 paper, the Kerberos sequence--still
| resonate 22 years later. But the big lesson wasn't in any of the
| papers, but in the structure as it communicated that engineering
| was not a solitary enterprise.
| ijidak wrote:
| This was the most impactful class I took at MIT.
|
| Of every class I took, the lessons from this class have helped me
| the most in the real world.
|
| Algorithms, though heavily covered in lame interview tests, pale
| in significance to the benefit of understanding how to architect
| systems at a high-level.
|
| And a knowledge of how existing computer infrastructure and
| platforms are architect-ed (DNS, Ethernet, etc.) provides a deep
| pool of successful, tested concepts for whatever new system is
| being built.
|
| Highly recommend completing this course via OCW if you want to
| improve as an engineer.
| bob1029 wrote:
| I have recently found a strong renewed interest in the power of
| algorithms. Thinking about all of the sciences, computer
| science is still very much on the leading edge. There seems to
| be a lot of area left to explore with regard to applying
| algorithms correctly and devising entirely new ones.
|
| For instance, the splay tree is arguably one of the more
| incredible data structures in all of computer science, and we
| didn't discover it until 1985. Think about all the undiscovered
| applications that may exist out there regarding such an
| algorithm. Contrast with how long mathematicians have had to
| play around with the ideas of Newton, et. al.
|
| Another fun data structure is the skip list. This is probably
| the simplest probabilistic data structure you could hope to
| invent, and we didn't figure it out until 1989. 4 years _after_
| the splay tree. To me, this says "keep looking".
| bmitc wrote:
| > Thinking about all of the sciences, computer science is
| still very much on the leading edge.
|
| What do you mean by this?
| deacon89 wrote:
| He means there's a lot of low hanging fruit left.
| devmunchies wrote:
| > left to explore with regard to applying algorithms
| correctly.
|
| Yes, and even just a trade-off based on context for where it
| will be used.
|
| I've realized that lots of libraries I use are generalized
| (by nature of being an OSS lib) so they aren't going to be
| hyper-refined for my particular use case.
|
| Usually an OSS lib will be better than something you can
| write in a day but if something is part of your product's
| competitive advantage, then you will probably be able to make
| a more optimized version than an open source lib.
| cmroanirgo wrote:
| This seems a lot different than the degree I did in Oz back in
| the 90's, which was a 6 year course (every 6 months was mandatory
| work experience): Computer Systems Engineering @UTS. Their
| current equivalent is this sub major:
|
| https://handbook.uts.edu.au/directory/smj03034.html
|
| Interesting is how different the two courses are. I learnt a
| bunch of hardware design and build (cpu, embedded, electronics)
| as well as software design and build.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Looks like your course focused on real-time and embedded
| systems, but used the same name. MIT's course is focusing more
| on general-purpose servers.
|
| I expect MIT also teaches RT/Embedded also but probably calls
| it something along those lines.
|
| Both skillsets are necessary, and IMHO not enough programmers
| are exposed to real-time systems in school. It's a very
| different style of coding and all modern desktop systems would
| work better if their designers had a better understanding of
| real-time principles.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| I've been an enthusiastic follower of MOOCs since 2013 and it's
| amazing to me that there _still_ isn 't a better option than OCW
| for a serious, long-term learner.
|
| Coursera and edX each had some great courses at their peak but
| the vast majority were lower-level, they came from a wide variety
| of institutions and most were time-restricted. As a result, even
| for subjects like mathematics or computer science there just
| wasn't a path for an ambitious learner to piece together the full
| material from a bachelor's degree. These days, even automated
| graders are behind the paywall and the promise of an education
| for all is more distant than ever.
|
| OCW is truly an invaluable resource worth supporting and sharing!
| michael_j_ward wrote:
| The MIT on edX courses for Probability [0], Single Variable
| Calculus [1], and differential equations [2] are of the
| absolute highest quality.
|
| In general, I'd if there's a course by MIT on edX for the topic
| you wish to learn, I'd check it out.
|
| [0] https://www.edx.org/course/probability-the-science-of-
| uncert...
|
| [1] https://www.edx.org/xseries/mitx-18.01x-single-variable-
| calc...
|
| [2] https://www.edx.org/xseries/mitx-18.03x-differential-
| equatio...
| ghaff wrote:
| Especially if you're willing/able to pay _some_ money there 's
| still a lot on edX etc., both individual courses and the
| various MicroMasters programs.
|
| But, yes, totally free content is somewhat limited at this
| point and, generally, MOOCs have to be seen as a disappointment
| to anyone who saw them as a radical free substitute for a
| university education.
|
| Perhaps interestingly, when OCW launched, MIT presented it as
| very much _not_ a substitute for an MIT education but rather as
| raw materials for educators to assemble their own courses.
| Which I 'm sure was at least in part a matter of internal
| politics but still. (And, of course, ubiquitous video of
| lectures wasn't a thing at the time anyway.)
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| Is it possible to piece together a full undergrad of
| coursework, self-study and then pass a subject GRE?
|
| That would be a more recognizable credential than a
| "micromasters".
| GrumpyYoungMan wrote:
| For computer science specifically, that's unfortunately not
| possible because the GRE for CS was discontinued in April
| 2013.
| ghaff wrote:
| No one (except a grad school) cares what you get on a GRE
| test. GREs aren't that different from SATs.
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| Even if that were true, which I don't believe, it's still
| highly useful. E.g. if someone passes a GRE Physics test,
| they may be able to enter a graduate program with an
| entirely unrelated undergraduate degree instead of
| spending 100k getting another.
|
| You may be different, but I'd have increased confidence
| in someone's general comfort with mathematical problem-
| solving if they posted good scores on a test covering
| this:
| https://www.ets.org/gre/subject/about/content/physics/
| liaukovv wrote:
| Many if not most MOOCs certainly lack depth, maybe the
| problem is in M part? Sometimes they feel like an ad
| ghaff wrote:
| Many of them are fairly faithful representations of the
| lecture components of courses from "elite" universities.
| There are certainly many MOOC courses I would struggle
| with. But, discussion boards are mostly a tire fire (in
| part, because of the M part as you suggest), problem
| sets/assignments are limited even if they're not behind a
| paywall, there are no recitation sessions, etc. So even if
| someone is motivated, which can be hard in the absence of
| meaningful certifications, they're just more limited than
| taking an actual university course.
| liaukovv wrote:
| Some courses can be of amazing quality, like 6.824
| maurys wrote:
| This course (at least the videos) are on YouTube for the
| latest iteration. I found the YouTube interface a bit more
| familiar for sampling the course.
|
| https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrw6a1wE39_tb2fErI4-WkMbs.
| ..
| andai wrote:
| There are two other versions of the course[0][1], from 2005 and
| 2009. This 2018 version seems to be the only one without video
| lectures.
|
| Actually, looks like both versions are using the 2005 videos (but
| with different UI: one embeds, one links to YouTube).
|
| [0]:
| https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/56581/6-033Sp...
|
| [1]:
| https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/118791/6-033-...
| edge17 wrote:
| They both seem to be missing Lectures 1,2, and 3. Not sure if
| that is intended, but it's a strange coincidence if it's not
| intended.
| liaukovv wrote:
| Secret knowledge?
| gregorygoc wrote:
| Probably some copyright issues.
| liaukovv wrote:
| Ah dark magic beyond human understanding
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-16 23:01 UTC)