SICP / What is "Computer Science" ?
LarryNorman1 HN recommenders · 2008–2014
131K views · lecture · evergreen · Uploaded 2006-09-12
An excerpt from Hal Abelson's opening SICP lecture introducing computer science and contrasting declarative and imperative knowledge. He argues that computer science is not really a science and is more like magic or engineering of ideas.
Cited in debates over whether computer science is a science, and for Abelson's line that it is neither a science nor about computers.
53:22Ruby Conf 12 - Y Not- Adventures in Functional Programming by Jim Weirich
Confreaks
1:03:43How to Speak
MIT OpenCourseWare
57:151. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology
Stanford
42:03The Soul of Erlang and Elixir • Sasa Juric • GOTO 2019
GOTO Conferences
1:01:39"Simple Made Easy" - Rich Hickey (2011)
Strange Loop Conference
1:21:52LEADERSHIP LAB: The Craft of Writing Effectively
UChicago Social Sciences
25:06"Making Impossible States Impossible" by Richard Feldman
elm-conf
1:11:40MIT's Pathway to Fusion Energy (IAP 2017) - Zach Hartwig
MIT Plasma Science and Fusion Center
4 comments from Hacker News
"Anything which uses science as part of its name isn't: political science, creation science, computer science." - Hal Abelson I would also recommend the first minutes of [VIDEO]
It is not a science. It is also not about computers. :) SICP lecture 1 -- [VIDEO] But maybe it is a science: there are certainly a number of things in CS that yield facts about things like algorithms (Big O, etc). I read other comments here that compare computer science to math, and it is not an unfair comparison. However, even amongst mathematicians, you will see something of an avoidance to associate math with science. Math is a framework of a sort, a way to think. When we are talking about how to think, we are talking about philosophy. Science has its own roots in philosophy, so it is not surprising that we see some grey areas here. So let me rephrase it a little... When you learn Computer Science, you learn how to think. People compare CS with engineering disciplines, but we find that there are a lot of methodology salesmen but few magic bullets. The problem with comparing computer programming (the practical side of CS) to engineering is that programming is very difficult to measure. We graduated from the idea of measuring lines of code. We have not figured out how to accurately measure a technique like TDD. We have an idea that code quality can rise when people pay attention to it, when people think about the problem; we can encourage this with code reviews, but we can do the same by encouraging developers to have a good night's sleep. We have conjured approximations for our measurements, but none of this has quite the feel of engineering. We are not building bridges, co
Feynman's view on CS is similar by Hal Abelson's take on the term (see [VIDEO] ). Abelson's point about CS being more like magic has always stuck with me.
Hal Abelson disagrees with you. "Computer Science is a terrible name for this business. First of all, its not a science. It might engineering, or it might be art. But we'll actually see that computer -- so-called science -- actually has a lot in common with magic."[1] 1. [VIDEO]