Computer Science Discourse Community Essay 2 As technology advances more and more each day, it has become increasingly important to not only engage in research to understand what is occurring in particular advances to areas such as cloud computing, microprocessing and cybersecurity, but to also spread the knowledge among technical professionals, academics and technology users, so as to build on the existing technological growth momentum. The computer science community transfers this knowledge v written exchange in two main ways; the academic and professional. The differing types of thetoric used by the professional and academic branches of computer science discourse ‘community impact the message relayed to the intended audience, but similarities in the same rhetoric advances the shared goal to create progress in technology. When it comes to academic papers, the primary genre employed by academics, specialization is required to have the credibility to have one’s work taken seriously. Most papers have one author, essentially the person who initiated the research, and at most two. TI small-team authoring demonstrates both the sheer amount of topics available to research, there are too many topics and not enough researchers, as well as just how reliant the academic computer science discourse community is to peer-review and critique; an author submits work that has to be reviewed by others to be considered viable. Computer science, as in the words of the famous academic Donald Knuth, famous for systemizing math techniques for determining computational efficiency of algorithms, is “just many people doing things that build on each other”. This insight reflects the importance of the existence of a fortified computer science discourse community rooted in constructive criticism and review. This idea is exemplified in the rhetoric of academic papers as well. For example, the Specification Techniques for Data Abstraction, a paper by Liskov from MIT, explores the importance of specification techniques inComputer Science Discourse Community Essay 3 regards to data abstracting methods and uses sectioning and textual metadii ‘ourse to express the logical relations of the research at hand, Textual discourse devices are those that essentially provide direction to guide the reader's’ thoughts (Hyland 1998). In an effort to minimize time and energy resources, Liskov employs sectioning by breaking the paper into six distinet parts such as “Specification Techniques” and “Conclusion” as well as subsections that break up those sections. In addition to sectioning and depth of topic, Liskov employs many endorphic markers, evidentials and logical connectives to create a credible ‘environment’ within the text that adds to the overall integrity and viability of the work. The endorphic markers, used to refer to other parts, of the paper (Hyland 1998), demonstrates a strong grasp of the concept being discussed and can be seen through Liskov’s use of graphs as supporters of her argument. Liskov also provides a rich list of references and uses them throughout her essay as evidence to support the claims she makes. The list of references, there are 36, support what Knuth believed; the knowledge is just bul ing words ing on what knowledge others have brought forward. Logical connectives, me like “therefore” and “furthermore” (Liskov 1975), are used to actually guide the audience to think a certain way by creating a relationship between the evidence and the claims made by the author. These uses of textual metadiscourse demonstrate just how important logical assertions ‘are to academic papers put forth by the academic computer science discourse community; all claims must be supported and evidence is essential to convey a true understanding of the concept at hand. Academic trust can only be established through the presence of logos, or “clear, responsible, reasonable premises and proofs” (Roskelly 2008), that develops a progression of ide: ind logical thinking the reader may verify; one can only say what has been proven or is inherently true to ensure a trustworthy reputeComputer Science Discourse Community Essay 4 On the professional side, being concise and direct is key to keeping up to speed with all new technological advances. Code for software is shared within private companies and even publicly by organizations and individuals. Websites like GitHub are meant to hold code and allow software professionals to share, edit and comment on each other’s work. GitHub as an artifact of the professional computer science discourse community consists of a code repository that holds the professional’s code base and any documentation, particularly a README text file, that explains the contents, context and logic of the code. Comments, such as “this is workaround for preventing a server erash” are embedded in the actual code by developers as an abstract of what a certain section of the code does. This is reflective of the sectioning seen in academic papers developed by the academic computer science discourse community;it is vital to get the most important information quickly. Comments provide developers with insight into what the code is doing without translating the code word for word. The collaborative environment also plays on the idea of knowledge just being that which has been added to by other computer scientists. In fact, peer-review is once again a central part of determining whether a program is as correct and effective as possible. For example, there are 58 contributing users constantly streamlining the code in the freeCodeCamp repository of the user freeCodeCamp on GitHub. Astonishingly, none of these contributors are vetted or deemed any special privilege to be able to edit the information; they are just software developers, professional or novice, who are passionate about coding and hope to utilize and improve their coding skills. The documentation supporting the code does not include any type of metadiscourse. For example, there are no textual logical connectives to guide the reader’s thinking or interpersonal emphaties to ereate a relationship with the reader, Instead there are just plain stated facts such as “This is a list ofComputer Science Discourse Community Essay 5 resources for people who are new to contributing to open source...If' you have questions or ‘comments, please create an issue.” which can be found in the README of the freeCodeCamp. repository. The lack of elements of metadiscourse support the idea of being concise, the experiential nature of coding, and the strong call for peer-review; a no-frill approach to utilizing collective knowledge to its full potential in the least time consuming way through simplicity and economy in writing, ‘The computer science discourse community is rooted in shared knowledge attained through constant peer review, easy transmission of information and supported evidence all in the hopes of advancing technology. The academic and professional factions of this discourse community differ in the language used to convey ideas. Academies use loftier, evidence based language to prove the validity of their argument and focus on creating logos with which to allow the reader to engage with the topic at hand. Employing textual metadiscourse allows authors to guide the audien ”s views on the topic and opens up the perspective for critique. Professionals show what they know through application; the actual code. Even though there is very little use of metadiscourse functions, there is a huge push to employ diverse perspectives on code to develop well-supported product that is the best it ean be. The various uses of language to convey information are necessary in the computer science discourse community to strengthen the ‘momentum of technology and continue to add eff ciency to the technological world.