Hubble telescope.
- Computer Science is not the science of computers, just as astronomy is not the science of telescopes.
- Biology is not microscopes, and Computer Science is not computers.
- Computer Science is a terrible name. Astronomy is not called "the science of telescopes," and biology is not called the "science of microscopes."
These quotes are attributed to the Dutch computer scientist Edsger W. Dijkstra. What is the origin of these quotes?
Quote Investigator: The earliest close match found by QI appeared in 1986 in the book Machinery of the Mind: Inside the New Science of Artificial Intelligence by science journalist George Johnson. The attribution was anonymous. Added extracts in bold:
, , . -, — , — , — . , . — , , , .
This statement has been difficult to trace, and this article is only a synopsis of current research. There is evidence that the basic idea originated in the 1960s and 1970s, but the original language was not short and straightforward.
Below are additional selected quotes in chronological order.
1971
In 1971, computer scientist Anthony Ralston published Introduction To Programming and Computer Science. He presented a thematically relevant analogy based on data from astronomers and telescopes:
Not only is computer science dependent on a particular machine or device; astronomy immediately comes to mind. But just as astronomers often engage in theoretical research that does not require a telescope, computer science research is not necessarily directly related to computers. One such area of ​​computer science is automata theory.
1974
In 1974, Australian computer scientist W. N. Holmes published The Social Implications of the Australian Computer Society, in which he criticized the phrase "computer science":
, , «» «» , , . , .
, , , , , , , , , , , . , .
1982
Donald Knuth
In 1982, the Annals of the History of Computing magazine published an interview with the prominent computer scientist Donald Knuth. He suggested that people in computer science were united because of their "peculiar thinking":
But being a useful tool isn't enough to accommodate the fact that computer science is now thriving in thousands of places. For example, the electron microscope is a marvelous instrument, but the "science of the electron microscope" has not taken over the world; something other than the usefulness of computers should explain the rapid spread of computer science.
What actually happened is that people who became interested in computers began to realize that their special way of thinking was shared by others, so they began to gather in places where people like them could work. This is how computer science was born.
1986
In 1986, journalist George Johnson incorporated an anonymous passage from the statement into Machinery of the Mind, as previously mentioned.
1989
In 1989, there was an interview with the prominent French computer scientist Jacques Arsac. Arsak attributed this statement to computer scientist Alan Perlis with the date 1968. The French passage below is accompanied by an English translation:
J'ai un texte de Perlis datant de 1968 dans lequel il critique le terme de Computer Science en disant qu'il est mal fait, qu'il n'y a pas de science d'un tool, que l'informatique n'est pas plus la science des ordinateurs que l'astronomie n'est celle des télescopes. Il y avait cette pride de : . Le nom est peut-être mal choisi, mais c’est une science nouvelle.
, 1968 , «Computer science», , , , — , — . : . , .
1993
Edsger Wibe Deykstra
In 1993, the Department of Computer Science at Colorado State University released a technical report containing a doctorate. dissertation by Matthew Dennis Haynes. The epigraph of the second chapter attributes the statement to Edsger W. Dijkstra:
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes ...
- E. W. Dijkstra
1995
In 1995 Joel Adams, Sanford Lestma, and Larry Nyhoff's textbook, C ++: An Introduction to Computing, contained a pertinent passage:
«computer science» . , , , « » « ». « », — ?
The earliest published evidence of a close match appeared in a 1986 book by George Johnson, but the attribution was anonymous. In 1974, W. N. Holmes expressed a similar opinion in an article in The Australian Computer Journal. But he did not provide a concise and straightforward definition.
There is circumstantial evidence from Jacques Arsac, who stated in 1989 that he read this statement in a 1968 manuscript by Alan Perlis. But the manuscript was never published. Thus, this statement depends on the accuracy of Arsak's memory.
