I have always found this quote annoying. There are many ways to solve problems, but when you constrain yourself to solving them mechanistically, that is what makes computer science computer science. Virtually every theoretical CS paper implicitly presupposes a specific model of computation. Sometimes they even say it explicitly.
Sure, computer science is not about a specific computer. But it is definitely about computers.
> There are many ways to solve problems, but when you constrain yourself to solving them mechanistically, that is what makes computer science computer science.
How would one solve a computational problem non-mechanistically? Even if executed with pen and paper, or sticks scribbling on sand, any algorithm is still mechanistic.
Respectfully I disagree. I believe what Dijkstra is getting at is that the specifics of modern computers aren’t “relevant” at all. Ultimately it’s the science of information and whats computable. Be that a modern day silicon processor at X gigahertz, a pen and paper, or a universe sized computer, that’s irrelevant for the science itself.
> I have always found this quote annoying
"Mission accomplished." -(fake) E.W. Dikjstra
My strong impression/suspicion is that Dijkstra had a great sense of humor and also enjoyed irritating people; it's puzzling when people take things like his comments on programming languages as serious rather than tongue-in-cheek, but I suspect he would have been amused.
I learned today that apparently Dijkstra won the Dijkstra prize in 2002. (I'm not sure what the qualifications are, but if I were to choose then it would be awarded to the most brilliant, and irritating, computer scientist who has made a groundbreaking contribution to a particular field.)