What Is Computer Science?

1. Newell, Allen; Perlis, Alan J.; & Simon, Herbert A. (1967), "Computer Science", Science 157(3795) (22 September): 1373-1374.

2. 
   Forsythe, George F. (1967), "A University's Educational Program in Computer Science", Communications of the ACM 10(1) (January): 3–8.

3. 
   Hamming, R.W. (1969), "One Man's View of Computer Science", Journal of the ACM 16(1) (January): 3–12.

4. Knuth, Donald (1974), "Computer Science and Its Relation to Mathematics", American Mathematical Monthly 81(4) (April): 323-343.

5. Newell, Allen, & Simon, Herbert A. (1976), "Computer Science as Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search", Communications of the ACM 19(3) (March): 113-126.

6. Arden, Bruce W. (1980), "COSERS Overview" [PDF], in Bruce W. Arden (ed.), What Can Be Automated? The Computer Science and Engineering Research Study (COSERS) (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), Ch. 1, pp. 1-31.
   • See esp. the sections titled "About Names and Labels" and "Some Definitions", pp. 5-10.

   • See also the (untitled) preface on the (unnumbered) pages immediately preceding p. 1.

   • Contains the following "sample questions" that are "more specific" than "What can be automated?":
     1. Are there useful, radically different computer organizations yet to be developed?

     2. What aspects of programming languages make them well suited for the clear representation of algorithms in specific subject areas?

     3. What principles govern the efficient organization of large amounts of data?

     4. To what extent can computers exhibit intelligent behavior?

     5. What are the fundamental limits on the complexity of computational processes?

     6. What are the limits on the simulation of physical systems?

     7. How can processes be distributed in a communicating network to the advantage of microtechnology?

     8. To what extent can numerical computation be replaced by the computer manipulation of symbolic expressions?

     9. Is it possible to replace a major part of system observation and testing with automated proofs of the correctness of the constituent algorithms?

   • Also contains the following list of "subject areas" of CS:
     1. Numerical computation
     2. Theory of computation
     3. Hardware systems
     4. Artificial intelligence
     5. Programming languages
     6. Operating systems
     7. Database systems
     8. Software methodology

     From this, he concludes that "What can be automated?" means: "What are the limits, imposed by complexity, on the application of computers?"

   ---

   On Microscopy vs. CS

7. Boorstin, Daniel J. (1983), The Discoverers (New York: Random House), Ch. 49: "The Microscope of Nature":

   "The hero of this story, Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694), was a great scientist whose work had no dogmatic unity. He was one of the first of a new breed of explorers who defined their mission neither by the doctrine of their master nor by the subject that they studied. They were no longer "Aristotelians" or "Galenists." Their eponym, their mechanical godparent, was some device that extended their senses and widened their vistas. What gave his researches coherence was a new instrument. Malpighi was to be a "microscopist," and his science was "microscopy," a word first noted in English in Pepys' Diary in 1664. His scientific career was held together not by what he was trying to confirm or to prove, but by the vehicle which carried him on his voyages of observation." (p. 376.)

   Compare this quote (emphasis added):

   "The debate over the appropriate place of computing in grade schools and high schools echoes the debate in universities decades ago, when computers and software were initially seen as mere plumbing. And certainly not something worthy of study in its own right. A department of computer science? Why not a department of slide rules?"
   • From: Lohr, Steve (2008) "Does Computing Add Up in the Classroom?", New York Times (1 April).

   Of possibly related interest:

   1. McBride, Neil (2007), "The Death of Computing".

   2. Mander, Keith (2007), "Demise of Computer Science Exaggerated"
      • A reply to McBride 2007.

   ---

8. Krantz, Steven G. (1984), Letter to the Editor about the relation of computer science to mathematics, American Mathematical Monthly 91(9) (November): 598-600.

9. Denning's view of CS:

   1. Denning, Peter J. (1985), "What Is Computer Science?" American Scientist 73 (January-February): 16-19.

   2. Denning, Peter J.; Comer, Douglas E.; Gries, David; Mulder, Michael C.; Tucker, Allen; Turner, A. Joe; & Young, Paul R. (1989), "Computing as a Discipline", Communications of the ACM 32(1) (January): 9-23.
      • "A Taxonomy of Subfields in CS&E:
        • Algorithms and data structures
        • Programming languages
        • Computer architecture
        • Numeric and symbolic computation
        • Operating systems
        • Software engineering
        • Databases and information retrieval
        • Artificial intelligence and robotics
        • Human-computer interaction"

   3. Denning, Peter J. (1995), "Can There Be a Science of Information?", ACM Computing Surveys 27(1) (March): 23-25.

   4. Denning, Peter J. (1999), "Computer Science: The Discipline", in Anthony Ralston & David Hemmindinger (eds.) (2000), Encyclopedia of Computer Science.

   5. Denning, Peter J. (2005), "Is Computer Science Science?", Communications of the ACM 48(4) (April): 27-31.

   6. Denning, Peter J. (2007), "Computing Is a Natural Science", Communications of the ACM 50(7) (July): 13-18.

   7. Denning, Peter J., "Great Principles of Computing"

   8. Denning, Peter J. (2009), "Beyond Computational Thinking", Communications of the ACM 52(6) (June): 28-30.

   9. Denning, Peter J.; & Rosenbloom, Paul S. (2009), "Computing: The Fourth Great Domain of Science", Communications of the ACM 52(9) (September): 27–29.

   10. Denning, Peter J.; & Freeman, Peter A. (2009), "Computing's Paradigm", Communications of the ACM 52(12) (December): 28–30.
       • "Trying to categorize computing as engineering, science, or math is fruitless; we have our own paradigm."

10. Abrahams, Paul (1987), "What Is Computer Science?", Communications of the ACM 30(6) (June): 472-473.

11. Loui, Michael C. (1987), "Computer Science Is an Engineering Discipline" [PDF] Engineering Education.

12. Ceruzzi, Paul (1989), "Electronics Technology and Computer Science, 1940-1975: A Coevolution", Annals of the History of Computing 10(4): 257-275.

13. Bajcsy, Ruzena K.; Borodin, Allan B.; Liskov, Barbara H.; & Ullman, Jeffrey D. (1992), "Computer Science Statewide Review" (unpublished report).

14. Hartmanis, Juris, & Lin, Herbert (eds.?) (1992), "What Is Computer Science and Engineering?" [PDF], in Juris Hartmanis & Herbert Lin (eds.), Computing the Future: A Broader Agenda for Computer Science and Engineering (Washington, DC: National Academy Press), Ch. 6, pp. 163-216.
15. Hartmanis, Juris (1993), "Some Observations about the Nature of Computer Science", in R.K. Shyamasundar (ed.), Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science: 13th Conference, Bombay, India, December 15-17, 1993; Proceedings (Berlin: Springer-Verlag Lecture Notes in Computer Science 761): 1-12.

16. Hartmanis, Juris (1995), "On Computational Complexity and the Nature of Computer Science" (Turing Award Lecture), ACM Computing Surveys 27(1) (March): 7-15.
    Among several follow-up commentaries, see esp.:
    • Denning, Peter J. (1995), "Can There Be a Science of Information?", ACM Computing Surveys 27(1) (March): 23-25.

    • Loui, Michael C. (1995), "Computer Science Is a New Engineering Discipline", ACM Computing Surveys 27(1) (March): 31-32.

    • Plaice, John (1995), "Computer Science Is an Experimental Science", ACM Computing Surveys 27(1) (March): 33.

    • Wulf, W.A. (1995), "Are We Scientists or Engineers?", ACM Computing Surveys 27(1) (March): 55-57.

    • And Hartmanis's replies:
      Hartmanis, Juris (1995), "Response to the Essays "On Computational Complexity and the Nature of Computer Science" ", ACM Computing Surveys 27(1) (March): 59-61.

17. Fant, Karl M. (1993), "A Critical Review of the Notion of Algorithm in Computer Science", Proceedings of the 1993 ACM Annual Computer Science Conference.
    • Argues that the notion of "process" is more central to CS than the notion of "algorithm".

18. Abelson, Harold, & Sussman, Gerald Jay, with Sussman, Julie (1996), Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, "Preface to the First Edition":
    • "Underlying our approach to this subject is our conviction that "computer science" is not a science and that its significance has little to do with computers. The computer revolution is a revolution in the way we think and in the way we express what we think. The essence of this change is the emergence of what might best be called procedural epistemology -- the study of the structure of knowledge from an imperative point of view, as opposed to the more declarative point of view taken by classical mathematical subjects. Mathematics provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of "what is." Computation provides a framework for dealing precisely with notions of "how to." "

19. Brooks, Frederick P., Jr. (1996), "The Computer Scientist as Toolsmith II", Communications of the ACM 39(3) (March): 61-68.

20. Gal-Ezer, Judith, & Harel, David (1998), "What (Else) Should CS Educators Know?", Communications of the ACM 41(9) (September): 77-84.
    • Contains a section titled "What is CS?".
    • Contains a "Bibliography for `What is CS?'"
    • Also contains the following quotes:

      "Computer science has such intimate relations with so many other subjects that it is hard to see it as a thing in itself." — Marvin Minsky "Computer science differs from the known sciences so deeply that it has to be viewed as a new species among the sciences." — Juris Hartmanis

21. Parnas, David Lorge (1998), "Software Engineering Programmes are not Computer Science Programmes", Annals of Software Engineering.

22. Jacob, Christian (1999), "What Is Computer Science?" [PDF]

23. Shagrir, Oron (1999), "What Is Computer Science About?" [PDF], The Monist 82(1): 131-149.
    • Despite its title, this paper is more about what computers are and what computation is; Shagrir assumes that CS is the science of computers.

24. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (2001), "Fundamentals of Computer Science: Symposium" (conference program)

25. Johnson, George (2001), "All Science Is Computer Science", The New York Times (25 March): WK1, WK5.
    • On-line with original photos at www.ezboard.com

26. Shapiro, Stuart C. (2001), "Computer Science: The Study of Procedures" [PDF]
    • Note: There is also an earlier, slightly different version, apparently no longer on line:
      Shapiro, Stuart C. (1997), "What Is Computer Science?".

    • Also see his website "Computer Science"

    • For more on the notion of CS as the study of "processes", see:
      Guzdial, Mark (2008), "Paving the Way for Computational Thinking", Communications of the ACM 51(8) (August): 25-27.
      • ...especially the citation to Alan Perlis.

    • Also on the nature of both procedural thinking and computational thinking more generally, see:
      Carey, Kevin (2010), "Decoding the Value of Computer Science", Chronicle of Higher Education 58(12) (November 12): A88.

27. Foley, Jim (2002), "Computing > Computer Science".
    • Revised version of paper that appeared in Computing Research News 14(4) (September) (2002): 6.

28. Boston University Department of Computer Science (2003), "What Is Computer Science?" [PDF]

29. IEEE/ACM Computing Curricula Series, including:
    1. Computer Science Volume (CC2001) [240-page PDF]
    2. Computing Curricula 2005: The Overview Report [62-page PDF]

30. Parlante, Nick (2005), "What Is Computer Science?", Inroads—The SIGCSE Bulletin 37(2) (June): 24-25.

31. Anthes, Gary (2006), "Computer Science Looks for a Remake", Computerworld (1 May).
    Two quotes from Bernard Chazelle, Prof. of CS, Princeton:
    • "CS is the new "new math," and people are beginning to realize that CS, like math, is unique in the sense that many other disciplineswill have to adopt that way of thinking. It offers a sort of conceptual framework for other disciplines, and that's fairly new."

    • "We're at the tail end of Moore's Law....But this will be the best thing that can happen to CS. Moore's Law has been tremendously beneficial to society. At the same time, it's been so damn powerful that it has set back the development of algorithms. But that's about to change. Any student interested in science and technology needs to learn to think algorithmically. That's the next big thing."

    • See also:
      Chazelle, Bernard (2006), "The Algorithm: Idiom of Modern Science"

32. Lohr, Steve (2006), "Computing 2016: What Won't Be Possible?", New York Times (31 October): F3

33. Wing, Jeannette M. (2006), "Computational Thinking", Communications of the ACM 49(3) (March): 33-35.
    • Wing, Jeannette M. (2008), "Five Deep Questions in Computing", Communications of the ACM 50(1) (January): 58-60.

34. Easton, Thomas A. (2006), "Beyond the Algorithmization of the Sciences", Communications of the ACM 49(5) (May): 31-33.

35. Naur, Peter (2007), "Computing Versus Human Thinking", Communications of the ACM 50(1) (January): 85-94.

36. Tedre, Matti (2007), "The Philosophy of Computer Science (Winter-Spring 2007)"
    • Tedre, Matti (2007), "Introduction to the Course", Lecture Notes in the Philosophy of Computer Science.

37. Department of Computing Sciences, Elon University, Elon, NC (retrieved 2/12/2007), "What Is Computer Science?"
    • This is from the departmental website of a small college's "computing sciences" (note the name!) department. It discusses pretty much all the issues we've been looking at: Is it a science? What does it study? Is it an engineering discipline?

38. Shneiderman, Ben (2007), "Web Science: A Provocative Invitation to Computer Science", Communications of the ACM 50(6) (June): 25-27.

39. Feitelson, Dror G. (guest ed.) (2007), Special Issue on Experimental Computer Science, Communications of the ACM 50(11) (November): 24-59.

40. "Where physical science is commonly regarded as an analytic discipline that aims to find laws that generate or explain observed phenomena, CS is predominantly (though not exclusively) synthetic, in that formalisms and algorithms are created in order to support specific desired behaviors."
    • From: Hendler, James; Shadbolt, Nigel; Hall, Wendy; Berners-Lee, Tim; & Weitzner, Daniel (2008), "Web Science: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding the Web", Communications of the ACM 51(7) (July): 60-69; quote on p.63.

41. Turner, Raymond (2010?), "Programming Languages as Mathematical Theories" [PDF]
    • "That computer science is somehow a mathematical activity was a view held by many of the pioneers of the subject, especially those who were concerned with its foundations. At face value it might mean that the actual activity of programming is a mathematical one. Indeed, at least in some form, this has been held. But here we explore a different gloss on it. We explore the claim that programming languages are (semantically) mathematical theories. This will force us to discuss the normative nature of semantics, the nature of mathematical theories, the role of theoretical computer science and the relationship between semantic theory and language design."

42. Summary