As a discipline, computer science was evidently misnamed. The facts that supports this notion are indeed numerous and weighty to a large extent. The individuals who named the discipline wrongly projected it as a science. The discipline fails to meet the criterion and standards of a science. The name could have been coined with the aim of making the discipline get a higher status, and consequently earn more respect from the public. There are numerous facts and reasons that help in trashing the notion of this discipline as a science and relevantly link it to engineering.
Computer science is generally concerned with the making of things. Though intangible, the products of the discipline are real and effective. Considering that engineering is concerned with the making of things, computer science therefore tends to incline in that direction and consequently refutes its current definition. Further, unlike science, the mere discovery of new facts in the discipline is not an achievement. Novelty of virtuous ideas in the discipline is not an important aspect in computer science as it is in natural science. Most important is the fact that scientists have a key role of studying their developed projects whereas engineers prioritize in studying existing structures with the aim of making others.
The concept of the computer scientist as a toolsmith is brought out by the author of this article. Further, the factor of inter-discipline collaboration has been discussed. The author argues that unlike other professions and disciplines, inter-discipline collaboration in computer science is very expensive both in terms of time and costs involved. Moreover, the research objective is not aided by the overall process.
Computer graphics and SIGGRAPH represents the most interesting sub discipline of computer science. This part of computer science is evidently the most interesting. Sharing in the sentiments of the NASA administrator, the author lightly puts off challenges in regard to computer science. America has increasingly turned into a grossly consuming society and the technicalities of disciplines are not of greater vitality than entertainment. Drawing examples from the awarding of Mother Teresa and Meryl Streep broadcasted on national television; the power of this kind of communication is evident. Scientists appreciate the positive publicity that is enhanced by television. However, the practices in the industry and the current trends are wrongly inclined. With numerous channels, the television industry is clearly turning into a vast wasteland.
Computer graphicists can work out magic considering the provisions of the sub discipline. They can comfortably recreate virtuous but seemingly real worlds that individuals can immerse themselves in and occasionally fool the real mind. The resultant features of the imaginative mind can either be positive or very negative. Computer graphicists have to relate to their hearts more than their minds in the process of creating relevant, natural, and significant concepts. This aspect has been backed by deliberations from the bible.
The Newell Award has been labeled as very important. It largely recognizes and wholly appreciates interdisciplinary works by recognizing the inputs of numerous collaborators. The author has acknowledged the awards and specially given thanks to all the team players in his work.
From a personal view, I think that the author is both right and wrong at the same time in regard to his theories and comprehension of computer science as a discipline. To a large extent, the discipline has actually been rightly named. The arguments raised by the authors in trying to trash the relevance of the naming are not strong. It is important to note that most of his arguments have been made on assumptions and beliefs of individuals who are not computer scientists themselves. However, the author relevantly discusses the sub discipline of computer graphics and its importance. Brooks has made the right deliberations on the aspect of communication and television as well as the aspect of computer graphics. The bottom line however, is that Brooks has made an important scholarly assumption which with further deliberations and inputs might help in the discovery of new concepts.
