DOI: 10.1145/2492007.2492011
is computing science?
Peter J. Denning’s Viewpoint “The Science in Computer Science” (May 2013) ex- plored the ongoing dispute over scientific boundaries
within computer science. The root
word in Latin for science is “
knowledge,” and computer science likewise
concerns knowledge. However, the
boundaries separating the sciences,
and knowledge in general, have never
been clear and definite.
In the mid-20th century, John von
Neumann was emblematic of the idea
that there are no clear boundaries.
“Mathematician” is the word most
often used to describe him, though
he was also a physicist, economist,
engineer, game theorist, and meteo-rologist, as well as computer scientist,
even though computer science did not
exist as a discipline at the time.
The term “von Neumann architecture” reflects how von Neumann’s professional life defined the principles of
modern digital computing. Was he a
computer scientist? If we could ask
him, he would say yes, because he appreciated that he used computing as
a tool, even though such an assertion
would have alienated many colleagues
at the Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton, NJ. He ignored the historical boundaries of the disciplines, but
his contributions expanded them all
because knowledge imposes no restrictions on what or how knowledge
is applied. In this light, the tool makes
the man. Can one be a surgeon without being able to use a scalpel, an astronomer without being able to use a
telescope, or a microbiologist without
being able to use a microscope?
The reason computing is so exciting today is precisely because such
boundaries are irrelevant. Before
Google, who would have imagined
a “search engine” would become a
multibillion-dollar industry or that
computing power combined with
powerful telescopes would explore for
Earth-like planets light-years away?
The power of computing is itself the
power of knowledge.
If there were indeed clear boundaries within the sciences, Thomas
S. Kuhn’s 1962 book The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions exposed them
as untenable. His study of what constitutes “normal” vs. “revolutionary”
science has been controversial ever
since because drawing boundaries is
nearly impossible.
Computing practitioners who feel
slighted when someone says their profession is less than scientific should
calm themselves. Computing is at the
heart of the expansion of knowledge
in practically every discipline, without regard to prior boundaries. Unlike any other tool ever devised, computing manages to straddle Boolean
logic, materials science, control of
electron flow, manufacturing know-how, and semanticity. Moreover, it
has no inherent size, with Moore’s
Law applying regardless of scale. Semanticity means computers are the
first machines to be able to store and
manipulate symbols that are also
meaningful to humans.
Knowledge is at the heart of computing, and knowledge has but one
boundary, between itself and ignorance and superstition. Von Neumann
made no effort to justify his professional pursuits, recognizing that knowledge is but one thing, available to all
who think.
francis hsu, rockville, MD
author’s Response:
Hsu eloquently argues on behalf of
my main conclusion—that computing
science cuts through many fields while
enriching them all with an understanding
of information and information
transformations—a conclusion that
will eventually be widely accepted. The
challenge in the near term is that many
K– 12 school systems do not recognize
computing as a science, nor do they have
computing courses, something many people
are working to change. I hope our Ubiquity
symposium ( http://ubiquity.acm.org)
provides them some needed ammunition.
Peter J. Denning, Monterey, CA
Reconciling acm
Bibliometric numbers
Scott E. Delman’s Publisher’s Corner
column “A Few Good Reasons to Publish in Communications” (May 2013)
included an unexplained oddity in its
otherwise interesting bibliometric
numbers. The figure said
Communications has published 11,257 articles, of
which 11,256 are available for download. Is there really exactly only one article not available for download? And if
so, which one?
mark J. nelson, Copenhagen, Denmark
Editor’s Response
Upon investigation, the ACM Digital Library
team discovered we were indeed shy
one .pdf document. A 200-word
announcement listed in the Table of
Contents of the April 2007 Communications
lacked an accompanying .pdf—hence the
discrepancy between publication count
and download count. We have rectified
the omission and thank you for your careful
reading and for bringing it to our attention.
Communications welcomes your opinion. to submit a
letter to the editor, please limit yourself to 500 words
or less, and send to letters@cacm.acm.org.
© 2013 acm 0001-0782/13/08
Coming Next Month in COMMUNICATIONS
Uncomfortable
User Experience
An Interview with
Code.org Founder
Hadi Partovi
Verifying Autonomous
Systems
Research and Practice:
The Curious Case of
‘Small’ Researchers-Practitioners
The latest news about software-defined networking, ephemeral
data and its societal implications,
and how magnetic logic makes
for usable chips.