4
$\begingroup$

Doing a bit of canvassing here, specifically this:

https://area51.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3021/is-computer-science-a-duplicate-of-theoretical-computer-science

Opinions would be greatly appreciated.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I think Artem's comment on the linked question was dead on. There are already so many CS related Stack Exchange sites that yet another would serve no purpose. He didn't even mention "Programmers". $\endgroup$ – Huck Bennett Sep 29 '11 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ The proposal went into commitment phase, go for it! $\endgroup$ – Raphael Dec 1 '11 at 9:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you change the title to plain “Computer science” now? $\endgroup$ – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Dec 2 '11 at 0:37
7
$\begingroup$

I think Stack Exchange sites really work best for coherent communities, and taking computer science and removing theory, security, graphics, and software engineering doesn't seem to me like it leaves you with a very coherent community. You should try defining a site by what it is, and not by what it is not.

I think the train has already left the barn on this one.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... and the metaphor has already left the mix.... $\endgroup$ – Aaron Sterling Oct 5 '11 at 18:36
4
$\begingroup$

It seems that the proposal has gone under several changes. I don't understand the scope anymore. So I posted a question asking for clarification of its scope. If the scope contains research level questions in TCS then it overlaps with cstheory and its creation will damage cstheory and other existing CS sites. In which case it should be closed because of that.

To me with current description of the scope of the proposal it seems like an indirect attempt to force two suggestions that cstheory community has rejected previously: 1. extending the scope of cstheory to contain non-research level question 2. extending the scope of cstheory to contain other areas in CS. As long as this is not clarified I am against the proposal since its creation will damage cstheory, more heavily than the creation of crypto.SE did.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There's no opposition to CSTheory in the CS proposal! On the contrary, CS leaves CSTheory alone, to keep up the good work. If anything, I hope that CS will stop the pressure from part of SE to dissolve CSTheory. The only traffic that I expect CS to draw away from CSTheory is the non-research-level questions that regularly get asked here, downvoted and closed as off-topic. $\endgroup$ – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Dec 10 '11 at 22:14
  • $\begingroup$ @Gilles: "the pressure from part of SE to dissolve CSTheory". There is no such pressure currently. I have already accepted Ken Li's clarification as you can see in the question on area 51, but thanks for repeating that clarification that the goal of the new proposal is mainly to create a site for non-research level CS question (a CS version of Math.SE). $\endgroup$ – Kaveh Dec 10 '11 at 23:34
3
$\begingroup$

As a long-term supporter of a computer science site, I welcome your proposal and thank you for spending the time to make it and defend it. I hope it won't be wrongly closed as a duplicate of this site, like (now deleted) previous attempts.

The proposal has now entered the commitment phase. Please join if you're interested in applied or non-research-level questions in computer science!

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .