[comp.edu] What is Computer * Science * ?

craig@unicus.UUCP (11/18/87)

In <933@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP>, Ken Thornton (thornton@ssc-vax.UUCP) writes:
>The study of computers isn't science, unless one extends the definition
>of computer beyond the digital instruments we all are familiar with.
>After all, anyone with a background in chemistry and physics knows
>exactly how a computer works.  Writing compilers and computer languages
>is not science.

But `the study of computers' is not what `computer science' is.
If that were true, we'd spend all our time peering into old IBM 360s
and chopping them up like biologists with frogs.  We design new things,
rather than examining existing ones.  
Computer science has always been, to me, those mathematics and sciences
that are most often used in designing and working with computer systems.
Logic, algebra, sometimes calculus and statistics, combinatorics,
information theory (Shannon et al.), cognition, intelligence and memory,
task analysis.  Most of these were included in my undergraduate years
at Waterloo.  More would have been included had I stayed longer. :-)

In this sense, it could be likened to `Rocket Science' in the 30s or so.
Ballistics, High-energy propulsion, structure design for extreme stress,
Large-scale gravitational mechanics, etcetera, all very closely associated
with the artifact, rockets, that required their most stringent application.

I think the existence of the large, expensive, *sexy* artifact (rocket,
nuclear reactor, computer) that attracts bright minds and government dollars 
distorts our perception of the fields of study that have always, and will
always, surround it.

I suppose that in fifty years, when computers are less of a novelty,
there will be no `computer scientists' by that name.  Perhaps, if 
present divisions continue, there will be:

	Symbolics, encompassing logic, discrete mathematics, and some
		of philosophy and natural language theory.
		Mostly a synthesis of existing fields to provide
		tools to the other, newer sciences to follow.
	Intelligence theory, including memory and perception,
		more closely allied to cognitive psychology.
	Information theory, including chaos theory, uncertainty, 
		undecidability and general systems theory.
		Some are now more the domain of physicists and others.
		I know of at least one prominent physicist who is
		working in information theory as he expects the
		next `big break' in quantum mechanics to be there.
	Nanomechanics, encompassing what we today call Electronics.
		Perhaps we will be using pieces other than electrons
		to carry and store our information in the future,
		or to perform more general tasks with molecules.
		Some of Eric Drexler's ideas about machines that are
		a very few molecules in size will attract people here.
		Note that a good deal of information theory will have
		to be devoted to controlling such devices!
		And a good deal of unravelling of molecular biology
		to discern how exactly such things can be made to work!
	Nanoengineering, constructing and controlling such devices,
		including designing or `growing' information engines.
	Physics, as always, exploring the frontiers of the material universe.

Which is one old field, one renamed, two young ones, and two new ones.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
I would be interested in seeing someone else's breakdown.		

>Most CS majors are not scientists. They are programmers.
Correction:  Most CS majors do not *become* scientists.
They *become* programmers.  Similar to chemists *becoming* technicians,
rather than research scientists.  Of course, this balance is subject
to change depending on what is in demand.  The more large software
systems there are out there that run into theoretical restraints,
the more demand for people who know the *science* of *computers*.

	Craig Hubley, Unicus Corporation, Toronto, Ont.
	craig@Unicus.COM				(Internet)
	{uunet!mnetor, utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!craig	(dumb uucp)
	mnetor!unicus!craig@uunet.uu.net		(dumb arpa)