4 ms·

“Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.” — E. W. Dijkstra

bmitc 4y ago
Astronomy actually is sort of about telescopes. Without telescopes, astronomy doesn't exist beyond some basic things. That's of course not true about computation, which is what I assume he meant by "computer science". Maybe a better analogy would have been astrophysics or cosmology.
- bmc7505 4y ago
  The way I read this is that computers are a bit like telescopes, in that they allow us to appreciate the structure of the [logical] universe. These instruments sharpen our limited powers of observation, allowing us to see farther or more clearly than we would otherwise be able to do with merely pen and paper.
- orange_fritter 4y ago
  Astronomy existed before telescopes. Jupiter's movements were noted well before glass was invented.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    That's what I meant by basic things.
- hayley-patton 4y ago
  There's a similar sentiment in the first SICP lecture <https://youtu.be/-J_xL4IGhJA?t=48 https://youtu.be/-J_xL4IGhJA?t=48>, when Harold Abelson brings up the examples of computers and computer science, physics and particle accelerators, biology and microscopes and Petri dishes, and geometry and surveying instruments. All those tools definitely help, and indeed one would struggle at this stage to research without them, but the tools aren't the goals of the sciences. I'm not sure what Dijkstra would have thought the "goal" of computer science was, but in the lecture Abelson seemed to think it was about describing procedures and processes in a formal manner.
  - bmitc 4y ago
    That’s a good link to share and one I thought about earlier, as I have watched that series before. However, as usual, Abelson and Sussman put together a much more coherent and thoughtful argument. I know what Dijkstra was going for, but I do think the astronomy analogy, though while pithy in his usual attention grabbing style, is not accurate because telescopes practically define astronomy. What you linked is what anyone wanting to think about this line of thinking more should watch. I almost feel I should watch those lectures once a year.
ngcc_hk 4y ago
Missing the word “just”. In Buddhism there is a school that is different from those which think mainly about pure and trying just be in n. Or all beings in n. It is all about existence and emptiness together. And not Or. You can still think about computer algorithms without a way to realise it though. And astronomy without observation as well. But what is the point.

Astronomy actually is sort of about telescopes. Without telescopes, astronomy doesn't exist beyond some basic things. That's of course not true about computation, which is what I assume he meant by "computer science". Maybe a better analogy would have been astrophysics or cosmology.

bmc7505 4y ago
The way I read this is that computers are a bit like telescopes, in that they allow us to appreciate the structure of the [logical] universe. These instruments sharpen our limited powers of observation, allowing us to see farther or more clearly than we would otherwise be able to do with merely pen and paper.
orange_fritter 4y ago
Astronomy existed before telescopes. Jupiter's movements were noted well before glass was invented.
- bmitc 4y ago
  That's what I meant by basic things.
hayley-patton 4y ago
There's a similar sentiment in the first SICP lecture <https://youtu.be/-J_xL4IGhJA?t=48 https://youtu.be/-J_xL4IGhJA?t=48>, when Harold Abelson brings up the examples of computers and computer science, physics and particle accelerators, biology and microscopes and Petri dishes, and geometry and surveying instruments. All those tools definitely help, and indeed one would struggle at this stage to research without them, but the tools aren't the goals of the sciences. I'm not sure what Dijkstra would have thought the "goal" of computer science was, but in the lecture Abelson seemed to think it was about describing procedures and processes in a formal manner.
- bmitc 4y ago
  That’s a good link to share and one I thought about earlier, as I have watched that series before. However, as usual, Abelson and Sussman put together a much more coherent and thoughtful argument. I know what Dijkstra was going for, but I do think the astronomy analogy, though while pithy in his usual attention grabbing style, is not accurate because telescopes practically define astronomy. What you linked is what anyone wanting to think about this line of thinking more should watch. I almost feel I should watch those lectures once a year.

ngcc_hk 4y ago

Missing the word “just”. In Buddhism there is a school that is different from those which think mainly about pure and trying just be in n. Or all beings in n. It is all about existence and emptiness together. And not Or. You can still think about computer algorithms without a way to realise it though. And astronomy without observation as well. But what is the point.