Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!chaph.usc.edu!aludra.usc.edu!wilber
From: wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber)
Newsgroups: comp.edu
Subject: Re: Textbook for Intro. Comp. Theory course
Summary: Computer Science Theory
Message-ID: <12037@chaph.usc.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 90 00:26:58 GMT
References: <392sis-a@massey.ac.nz> <12007@chaph.usc.edu> <9627@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Sender: news@chaph.usc.edu
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 32
Nntp-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <9627@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:

>Perhaps we should periodically post an article which reminds people that
>computer science isn't `the science of computers', or even the study of
>computer technology (an important and interesting field in its own
>right, of course). 

Written like a true computer science theoretician. ;-)

If "Computer Science" isn't the "science of computers" then pray tell what 
is it?  Also if computer science has nothing to do with computers why should
anyone bother wasting time studying it (aside from being viewed as an
esoteric branch of mathematics)?  You can study turing machines for your 
whole life without generating any results of any particular value to
the world (though you can certainly fill up a lot of technical journals
with the stuff, perhaps to be read by other "computer science theoreticians").

Why are those students in the class anyway?  Will spending six weeks studying
chomsky grammars be of more value than studying bus design or data migration
strategies?  Certainly all three of these are "theoretical" in that they
are not specific to a particular application, but understanding the latter
two is important on a day-to-day basis for computer professionals.  Don't
get me wrong.  I don't think that studying that kind of stuff (grammars,
turing machines, etc.) is COMPLETELY worthless.  I just think it's a minor
marginal area of computer science and not worthy of being pressed into 
center stage by mathematicians posing as computer scientists.

I have joined the ACM off and on over the years and always end up letting
my membership expire when I get tired to the intellectual posturing of
mathemeticians posing as computer scientists.  Reading through a hundred
papers full of superficial mathematical trivia is not worth the occasional 
one paper of real interest.