Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
proposed was unabashedly theoretical: although it recognized that prac-
tical training in programming was “an important by-product” of an
education in computer science, the development of programming skill
was “by no means its main purpose.” Numerical analysis fi gured heavily,
as did computability theory, formal languages, and automata theory.
As Goshal Gupta has suggested, although Curriculum '68 did not end
all debate about what computer science should look like or where it
should fi t into the university, it did represent a landmark moment in the
history of the discipline. 68 Curriculum '68 “established computer science
as an academic fi eld of study and specifi ed to a great extent its content,”
concluded a follow-up report from the late 1970s. Within two years of
their publication the Curriculum '68 guidelines had been implemented
in at least twenty-six universities. 69 The special committee assembled by
the ACM to produce the Curriculum '68 report, the Curriculum
Committee on Computer Science (C 3 S), followed up with a series of
articles in the Communications of the ACM highlighting specifi c topics
from the recommendations, including computational linguistics, formal
languages, automata, and abstract switching and computability. In col-
laboration with the National Science Foundation, the C 3 S also hosted
a series of conferences aimed at enabling smaller universities and
teaching colleges to implement Curriculum '68. 70 Over the course of
the next decade, the C 3 S would continue to refi ne and monitor its
recommendations.
“Cute Programming Tricks”
Not everyone agreed with the theoretical turn that computer science took
in the late 1960s. For many occupational computer programmers, most
of what was happening in theoretical computer science seemed irrelevant
or even counterproductive, a “sort of holier than thou academic intel-
lectual sort of enterprise” divorced from practical concerns of commer-
cial computing. 71 Even as computer science succeeded in its quest to
establish itself as an academic discipline, industry observers were noting
that academic success did not necessarily translate into real-world accom-
plishments. In the keynote address at the Conference on Personnel
Research in 1968, IBM researcher Hal Sackman acknowledged the need
for “proper education” for programmers, yet then asked, “But who can
we look to for such education? Not the new departments of computer
science in the universities. . . . [T]hey are too busy teaching simon-pure
courses in their struggle for academic recognition to pay serious time and
Search WWH ::




Custom Search