The Definition of Computer Science
13 Mar 2009What is Computer Science?
It’s always interesting to see how different people answer the question. Especially people who have or plan to have degrees in it. Dictionary.com defines it as:
the science that deals with the theory and methods of processing information in digital computers, the design of computer hardware and software, and the applications of computers.
I see this broken down into:
- Science
- Theory
- Design of hardware and software
- Applications for computation
Normally, I’d say fighting the dictionary on definitions would be rather fruitless, but this is by far one of the most vague definitions I’ve ever seen. I think a good analog for CS is math and physics. In that much more mature field, mathematics provides laws that say x should exist. It is then up to the applied physicist to prove in a lab that the theory is true. Even then, it is up to a company and its engineers to productize and actually use the fruits of science. Computer Science, in stark contrast according to this definition, is all of those things rolled up into one. It’s no wonder why no one in this field knows what it means.
To me, the entire term “Computer Science” is a huge misnomer. It’s certainly not science. Science, at least to me, involves creating a hypothesis, setting up an experiment, and proving the truth of your assumptions. Last time I checked, there was no such thing in CS. Nobody sits around and hypothesizes about algorithms, let alone commercial programs. I think upper management would have a conniption if their products were experiments.
So what about computers? Surely you use computers in CS! I suppose most of my professors didn’t get that memo, and, historically, that really hasn’t been the case either. Edsger Dijkstra, one of the most renowned computer scientists in our short history, never used a computer. Even his musings, as late as 2001, were handwritten. Dijkstra had a very particular view of CS. To him, Computer Science was purely theory – really quite close to a real science in terms of algorithm design and such. It was his opinion that all these programs we run on our computers are perversions of computation. In the spirit of our forerunner, my professor in Advanced Data Structures forwent computers in favor of the more conventional pencil and paper. To be fair, I’m almost certain he was a machine, based upon his ability to do the most tedious and mundane calculations ad nauseum with the patience of any of Intel’s creations.
Since it seems my degree is almost as ambiguous as a Liberal Arts degree, I will posit my suggestions for changing it. Fortunately, unlike my comparison, my degree is both useful and salvageable.
My university has done a good job of trying to distill the ideas that I’ve covered here, and, for that, I commend them. It is, however, nothing short of unprovidential that they’ve managed to distill one form of mud into two forms of mud. The school offers degrees in Computer Science and Software Engineering. Despite what you might think, SE is hardly its namesake. What they ended up with is a theory-application mix (CS) and a application-business mix (SE). At least it’s a step in the right direction.
I think we need three degrees, as you have probably noticed that I’ve been hinting all along:
- Theoretical Computation
- Software Engineering
- Software Management
Theoretical Computation would focus on algorithm design and computability, as its name suggests. It’s not a science, and it has no computers in it – just computability, or the ability for something to be derived from calculations and deterministic processes.
Software Engineering would actually live up to its name. Programming would be king, like the pencil is to the artist. Software architecture would be a major emphasis, as well as applied algorithm design, which could reach over into Theoretical Computation.
Finally comes Software Management. Because software planning is a huge issue for any company that writes software, be it boxed or internally distributed, we need people who are trained to help the process along. These people need to be business savvy to communicate deadlines and goals to the non-technical arm(s) of the company. Furthermore, Software Management majors have to be technical enough to be able to choose good employees.
A lot of people in the field feel that there will be a strong resistance to change for such a degree plan, even if it makes sense. I can understand the impetus, but at the same time the degree itself hasn’t existed for forty years, so there is always hope for reorganization.