3 ms·
> I feel like at this point we should be teaching History of Computing in CS programs. I am responding in trepidation, because I am certain you and everyone at
by Maursault 6y ago
> I feel like at this point we should be teaching History of Computing in CS programs.
I am responding in trepidation, because I am certain you and everyone at HN must know what I am about to say.
Computer Science is not the science of computers, nor is it remotely the history of computers. The "computer" in Computer Science is not a machine... it is a person, "one who computes." Nor is Computer Science programming, not strictly speaking, though programming is often among the tools utilized by a computer scientist. Computer Science is and only is a subset of Mathematics, and properly initially belongs in the Math Department of a university.
The simplest analogy I have heard, which I think most now have, is that a computer is to a computer scientist what a telescope is to an astronomer. Astronomy is not the science of telescopes, nor the history of telescopes, though I would expect most Astronomy curriculums to include some overview of how telescopes work and their history, but not as some core and essential tract within the study. So in that many machines were utilized to forward the pursuit of Computer Science, so long as it is focusing on the computer science and not the nuts and bolts computer, your idea has merit.
If I am not mistaken, Computer Engineering probably doesn't spend much more than a brief overview of the history of the actual hardware. The CE undergraduate degree is overflowing as it is.
IMO, what you are suggesting belongs in the curriculum of the History of Technology, which is a perfectly valid and endlessly fascinating pursuit.
This machine is neat, and I was using computers during this era, so it makes my mouth water, "what if I had access to that?" But unless it was actually used by someone, a computer scientist, for and to advance actual Computer Science (and that can not merely be programming or creating business applications or games, but needs to at least be efforts towards computational systems), it is entirely irrelevant to the field of Computer Science.
Also, in the sense that Computer Science predates hardware by millennia, the History of Computing (i.e. the history of the activity of one who computes) is already covered in C.S.
Suggested to me years ago, which I completely agree with, since "computer" is now an ambiguous term, Computer Science should change its name to avoid the all to common mistake of assuming CS has to do with desktops and servers. Computer Science is really the science of reckoning, so it should be called "Reckoning Science" to avoid further confusion.
- mlyle 6y agoThe central locus of study of computer science shifts depending upon what real computers do. We care about parallel and distributed algorithms more because we have real parallel machines and big distributed systems of many machines. It's not an obscure graduate offshoot about future hypotheticals and exotic high-end machines. We care about cache efficiency and memory access efficiency a whole lot more, because the ratio of speeds in a typical computer has changed. And we're not spending so much of our time studying n-way tape merges anymore... even though they may come "back" because of these shifting constraints. Real changes in what's typically limiting and what we're trying to do with computers shift the emphasis of computer science around. And the tick-tock cadence between individual resources and centralized resources... across scaling horizontally and scaling vertically... between single fast machines and distributed systems... can be expected to continue.
- robotresearcher 6y agoSome universities, notably in the UK and Canada, use the terms 'computing science' and 'computation' for the reason you describe. I'm not sure it's worth the potential confusion of a weirdly named degree. Astronomy is not about telescopes, but neither is it entirely about stars ('astra'). The name 'computer science' is not a problem in practice.
- max-ibel 6y agoYou may read too much into the name. CS is called "Informatics" in Germany, was called "Cybernetics" in the USSR etc. I would agree that a branch of CS deals exactly with the mathy part, e.g. algorithms, graph theory and so on. Then there is the systems branch; the UX/UI branch touching upon psychology etc.; a branch dealing with didactics etc. I don't see why there shouldn't be a history of CS branch under the larger umbrella. Personally, I think "informatics" is a better name than "computer science", but that's just my biased opinion.
- II2II 6y agoAstronomy is a curious example since history is often taught along with the science, at least at the introductory level. This history is typically involves the development of ideas rather than the development of telescopes since it is important to convey that it is a science and our understanding of the universe evolves with time. I suspect that something similar would be beneficial in computer science and engineering, particularly to dispel this notion that computation (may it be mechanical or human) predates the history of computers or to give some perspective on what is happening in the industry today.