Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!husc6!ut-sally!im4u!milano!mcc-pp!tiemann
From: tiemann@mcc-pp.UUCP (Michael Tiemann)
Newsgroups: net.cse
Subject: Re: Role of computer science (was !Tom)
Message-ID: <1729@mcc-pp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Sep-86 10:22:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: mcc-pp.1729
Posted: Wed Sep 24 10:22:36 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 29-Sep-86 04:21:27 EDT
References: <699@sdcc12.UUCP> <10202@cca.UUCP>
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 58
Summary: Give the theoreticians some credit!

In article <10202@cca.UUCP>, g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) writes:
> Tom Keller writes:
> >    Without the theoretical foundations laid by
> >    Computer Scientists (and their associates, mathematicians and EEs) the
> >    "programmers" wouldn't have anything to work with.  It remains the
> >    theoreticians who lead the way in the development of new computing
> >    technology and methodology.
> >
> 	Er, ah, I hate to break it to you, but this simply isn't so.
> Programming very much came first; the early programmers developed the
> principles of programming pretty much ad hoc.  The theoretical foundations
> were developed after the fact.  It would be much more accurate to say that
> the theoreticians *are becoming* the leaders in the development of new
> computing technology and methodology.
> 
> 	In the case of programming, the significant developments all
> preceded the rise of computer science, which was very much an after
> the fact occurence [and is still somewhat mired in the identity search
> syndrome.]  Concepts (and implementation) of ideas such as databases,
> operating systems, higher order languages, and data structures were
> brought into being by programmers.  It should be noted, however, that
> the early programmers were not "graduates of programming schools";
> they had highly varying backgrounds with a predominence of Mathematics
> and Engineering.
> -- 
> 
> Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]
> 	For Cheryl :-)

	Er, ah, I hate to break it to you, but the theoretical
foundations were well in place before the programmers got there.
Recursion and induction (two very powerful programming techniques)
were well in place from centuries ago. The notion of an algorithm
existed before electricity was even understood. Church invented
the Lambda Calculus almost 20 years before LISP existed, theorem-proving
systems of Gentzen preceded AI, and Kleene had a number of formal language
results before the first compiler existed.

	The reason that Computer Science *seems* like a new field is
because it can be so closely related to other existing fields such as
Algebra, Logic, and Analysis. It is true that along the way
programmers have made their contribution to the field of the science,
but the real question that people in the field of Computer
Science/Engineering must ask themselves is whether we want to depend
on the fact that programmers will stumble their way to the truth as
they have so far, or whether we can create a discipline whereby the
path can be made to reveal itself.

	Your note that early "programmers" were not graduates of
programming schools, but mathematicians. To quote Robert Frost (I
think) "... and that has made all the difference." THEY hal the
discipline, the deeper understanding to write programs where none had
been written before. To take a curriculum of programming without also
understanding the formal foundations is to be just another software
tool.

Michael
tiemann@mcc.com