On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Jerzy Karczmarczuk <jerzy.karczmarc...@unicaen.fr> wrote: > It is unsourced, repeated without discernment, and Dijkstra cannot confirm > (or deny) it any more. Somehow I cannot believe he said that... > Dijkstra began to study physics, and a physicist would be reluctant to make > such puns. Why?
Some googling takes me to the full quote: > "Computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about > telescopes, biology is about microscopes, or chemistry is about beakers and > test tubes. Science is not about tools. It is about how we use them, and what > we find out when we do." Which is referenced to, inside _Invitation to Computer Science_ (G. Michael Schneider, Judith L. Gersting, Keith Miller; http://books.google.com/books?id=gQK0pJONyhgC ), to "Fellows, M.R., and Parberry, I. "Getting Children Excited About Computer Science", _Computing Research News_, vol. 5, no. 1 (January 1993)". Curiously, the preface to the quote is: > This distinction between computers and computer science is beautifully > expressed by computer scientists Michael R. Fellows and Ian Parberry in an > article in the journal _Computing Research News_: *No* mention of Dijkstra. Searching that full book, the only Dijkstra mentions are unconnected to the quote. Chasing links, I head to http://archive.cra.org/CRN/issues/by_title_by_issue.html and download January 1993: http://archive.cra.org/CRN/issues/9301.pdf On page 7, I find it. The article title is different: "SIGACT trying to get children excited about CS". The money line is highlighted. The relevant paragraph and surrounding paragraphs: > Is it any wonder then that computer science is represented in many schools by > either computer games or some antiquated approach to programming, which at > worst concentrates on a litany of syntax and at best emphasizes expediency > over effectiveness and efficiency? But computer science is not about > computers—it is about computation. > > What would we like our children- the general public of the future—to learn > about computer science in schools? We need to do away with the myth that > computer science is about computers. Computer science is no more about > computers than astronomy is about telescopes, biology is about microscopes or > chemistry is about beakers and test tubes. Science is not about tools, it is > about how we use them and what we find out when we do. > > It may come as a surprise to some that computer science is full of activities > that children still find exciting even without the use of computers. Take > theoretical computer science, for example, which may seem an unlikely > candidate. If computer science is underrepresented in schools, then > theoretical computer science is doubly so. This is the precise quote, with no quotation marks or references or allusions of any kind; this seems to be the original, where the exact quote comes from. There are no mentions whatsoever of Dijkstra in the January PDF. On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Christopher Done <chrisd...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Wherever its origin, it is featured in SICP which was out in 1984: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQLUPjefuWA It's a sound analogy. Abelson doesn't cite Dijkstra in the first minute where he makes the comparisons, either, unless I missed it. As well, in no Google hit did I find any specific citation to Dijkstra. Hence, I conclude that because it is insightful and sounds like Dijkstra (eg. his submarine quote), it has become apocryphally associated with him but is *not* actually a Dijkstra quote. -- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
