Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!lll-winken!csustan!news From: rsc@altair.uucp (R. S. Cunningham) Newsgroups: comp.edu Subject: Re: Snowbird Recommendations Summary: Reference to CACM article Keywords: Snowbird, CS Curricula Message-ID: <1989Nov30.040302.3191@csustan.CSUStan.Edu> Date: 30 Nov 89 04:03:02 GMT References: Reply-To: rsc@altair.csustan.edu (R. S. Cunningham) Organization: CSU Stanislaus Lines: 17 With respect to the questions: > Quite recently--about a year ago--either in one of the ACM journals or > the IEEE Computer Society journals there was a very nice and long > article on the CS Curriculum recommendations. > > This particular article had a nice two-page spread in the form of > a table where the subareas of CS as a discipline was listed vertically > and horizontally there were columns which listed the theory, > abstraction, and design elements comprising theses subareas. I think this was, in fact, the report of the Denning committee which attempted to define the discipline of computer science in a structured fashion. It was not a curriculum recommendation; this is now under development by a joint ACM/IEEE group. A report on this is expected at SIGCSE (Washington, February '90). Computer Science educators should look this over when the next draft is released. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com