3 ms·
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 e
by 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 agoThat’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.