• Search for:

•  

  December 2008

  S	M	T	W	T	F	S
  « Nov
  	1	2	3	4	5	6
  7	8	9	10	11	12	13
  14	15	16	17	18	19	20
  21	22	23	24	25	26	27
  28	29	30	31

• My Photos

  www.flickr.com Go to tm-tm's photostream

We now know that electronic technology has no more to contribute to computing than the physical equipment. We now know that a programmable computer is no more and no less than an extremely handy device for realizing any conceivable mechanism without changing a single wire, and that the core challenge for computing science is a conceptual one, viz. what (abstract) mechanisms we can conceive without getting lost in the complexities of our own making.

But in the mean time, the harm was done: the topic became known as “computer science” - which, actually, is like referring to surgery as “knife science” - and it was firmly implanted in people’s minds that computing science is about machines and their equipment. Quod non.

(These days I cannot enter a doctor’s, dentist’s, or lawyer’s office without being asked my advice about their office computer. When I then tell them that I am totally uninformed as to what hard- and software products the market currently offers, their faces invariably get very puzzled.)

This was written in 1985, and I don’t think things have changed much! I still have to explain to people on a regular basis that I don’t actually know very much about computers per se, and probably can’t tell them what’s wrong with their printer/email/word processor/whatever.

Comments