On Apr 3, 9:15 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 5:39 pm, Nathan Rice <nathan.alexander.r...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >> Don't think "underlying", instead think "canonical". > > >> Ultimately, the answers to your questions exist in the world for you > >> to see. How does a surgeon describe a surgical procedure? How does a > >> chef describe a recipe? How does a carpenter describe the process of > >> building cabinets? Aside from specific words, they all use natural > >> language, and it works just fine. > > > A carpenter describes his carpentry-process in English > > A CSist describes his programming-process in English (at least all my > > CS books are in English) > > > A carpenter uses his tools -- screwdriver, saw, planer --to do > > carpentry > > A programmer uses his tools to to programming -- one of which is > > called 'programming language' > > > Doing programming without programming languages is like using toenails > > to tighten screws > > I would argue that the computer is the tool, not the language.
"Computer science is as much about computers as astronomy is about telescopes" -- E W Dijkstra Here are some other attempted corrections of the misnomer "computer science": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science#Name_of_the_field -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
