Computer Science has very little to do with unit testing.
Look at things like theoretical computer science and category theory. The word "class" comes right out of basic category theory. (You don't need any category theory to program a computer, but it directly influenced object oriented programming.)
And, if you think programming is easy, consider yourself lucky. Take the time to learn some soft skills. Maybe you'll understand your downvotes.
> Take the time to learn some soft skills. Maybe you'll understand your downvotes.
lol, I'm not here to win votes. This is the internet. This comment alone shows a lack of soft skills on your side. Except for when the person I'm communicating with chooses to get personal I never get personal when I talk about things on the internet and I never hold back either, that's part of the appeal of being here. I can tell what I believe to be the truth without concern for your feelings. Despite the lack of concern for your feelings I do make deliberate effort to not attack YOU directly. I am aware that the things I say may piss people off but in all I'm just here to talk about the topic at hand without worrying about real world stuff like your feelings.
>Look at things like theoretical computer science and category theory. The word "class" comes right out of basic category theory. (You don't need any category theory to program a computer, but it directly influenced object oriented programming.)
OOP was invented before anyone knew that category theory had anything to do with computer science. Class most likely comes from set theory. Also if you work with category theory or languages that implement the theory you'd know that the morphism is central to the theory not the object. In other words it has much more to do with Functional programming then it does with OOP. OOP has virtually no theoretical basis and it fits into category theory in a very awkward way.
>Computer Science has very little to do with unit testing.
It does. I'm literally talking about how it does have to do with theory.
In computer science there are two ways to verify 100% correctness of a function. You either prove it correct given an initial condition and a final condition. Or you unit test every possible input with the associated output. Software Engineering chooses to go with neither approach. Software engineering chooses to go with a tiny subset of all possible unit tests and hopes that the correctness of that subset of tests correlates with the correctness of the entire domain. This is a more applied math (aka statistical) approach to verification that increases confidence but does not verify the program to be correct. (This is also debatable how much statistical rigor unit tests have as its a usually done with a very ad-hoc approach... unit tests are usually too few in number and highly biased).
All of this is part of Computer Science. You will note that the paragraph above uses the word "unit testing" Software Engineering is simply application of said theory or application of no theory but they can be one in the same.
>And, if you think programming is easy, consider yourself lucky.
I hear parents talking all the time about trying to teach their kids programming. Internet tutorials are all over the place. It's easy in the sense that mostly everyone can learn it. It's not easy in the sense that it does require a lot of effort.
What's hard is quantum physics. You ever hear of an internet tutorial that will teach you all of quantum physics? An udemy course that will cover all you need to know? Ever hear parents trying to teach their kid about quantum physics? Quantum physics is hard, programming is not.
Look at things like theoretical computer science and category theory. The word "class" comes right out of basic category theory. (You don't need any category theory to program a computer, but it directly influenced object oriented programming.)
And, if you think programming is easy, consider yourself lucky. Take the time to learn some soft skills. Maybe you'll understand your downvotes.