V

viewpoints

DOI:10.1145/1610252.1610265 Peter J. Denning and Peter A. Freeman

The Profession of IT
Computing’s Paradigm
Trying to categorize computing as engineering, science, or math is fruitless;
we have our own paradigm.

C
OMPUTING RIGHTFULLY COMES up gramming as the unifying theme. In
in many discussions of uni- recent times, this view has foundered
versity organization and cur- because the field has expanded and the
ricula, high school courses, public understanding of programmer
job qualifications, research has become so narrow (a coder).
funding, innovation, public policy, and The third wave was the NSF-spon-
the future of education. In repeated at- sored Computer Science and Engineer-
tempts to characterize our field in these ing Research Study (COSERS), led by
discussions, our leaders continue to en- Bruce Arden in the mid-1970s. It defined
counter sometimes contentious debate computing as automation of informa-
over whether computing is a field of en- tion processes in engineering, science,
gineering or science. Because it leaves and business. It produced a wonderful
others with a sense that we lack a clear report that explained many exotic as-
focus, that debate negatively influences pects of computing to the layperson.1
policies involving computing. itself. Some founders thought the new However, it did not succeed in reconcil-
There seems to be agreement that field a branch of science, others en- ing the engineering and science views
computing exemplifies engineering and gineering. Because of the sheer chal- of computing.
science, and that neither engineering lenge of building reliable computers,
nor science characterizes computing. networks, and complex software, the Peaceful Coexistence
What then does characterize comput- engineering view dominated for four In the mid-1980s, the ACM Education
ing? In this column, we will discuss decades. In the mid-1980s, the science Board was concerned about the lack of
computing’s unique paradigm and of- view began to assert itself again with a common definition of the field. The
fer it as a way to leave the debilitating the computational science movement, Board charged a task force to investigate;
debate behind. which claimed computation as a new its response was a report Computing as
The word “paradigm” for our pur- sub-paradigm of science, and stimu- a Discipline.4 The central argument of
poses means a belief system and its as- lated more experimental research in the report was that the computing field
sociated practices, defining how a field computing. was a unique combination of the tradi-
sees the world and approaches the solu- Along the way, there were three waves tional paradigms of math, science, and
tions of problems. This is the sense that of attempts to provide a unified view. engineering (see Table 1). Although all
Thomas Kuhn used in his famous book, The first wave was by Alan Perlis,9 Allen three had made substantial contribu-
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Newell,8 and Herb Simon,11 who argued tions to the field, no single one told the
Paradigms can contain sub-paradigms: that computing was unique among all whole story. Programming—a practice
thus, engineering divides into electri- sciences and engineering in its study of that crossed all three paradigms—was
cal, mechanical, chemical, civil; science information processes. Simon went so essential but did not fully portray the
divides into physical, life, and social sci- far as to call computing a science of the depth and richness of the field.
ences, which further divide into sepa- artificial. The report in effect argued for the
rate fields of science. The second wave started in the late peaceful coexistence of the engineer-
1960s. It focused on programming, ing, science, and math paradigms. It
Roots of the Debate seen as the art of designing information found a strong core of knowledge that
Whether computing is engineering or processes. Edsger Dijkstra and Donald supports all three paradigms. It called
science is a debate as old as the field Knuth took strong stands favoring pro- on everyone to accept the three and not

28 C OM M UN I CAT I ON S O F T HE AC M | DECE MBER 200 9 | VO L. 52 | NO. 12

 viewpoints

try to make one of them more important such as DNA transcription.2,6 The great
than the others. principles framework interprets com-
Around 1997, many of us began to puting through the seven dimensions There is an
think the popular label IT (information of computation, communication, co- interesting
technology) would reconcile these three ordination, recollection, automation,
parts under a single umbrella unique evaluation, and design (see http:// distinction between
to computing.3,7 Time has proved us greatprinciples.org). The relationships computational
wrong. IT now connotes technologi- framework interprets computing as a
cal infrastructure and its financial and dynamic field of many “implementa- expressions and the
commercial applications, but not the tion” and “influencing” interactions.10 normal language of
core technical aspects of computing. There is now a strong argument that
computing is a fourth great domain of engineering, science,
A Computing Paradigm science alongside the physical, life, and and mathematics.
There is something unsatisfying about social sciences.5
thinking of computing as a “blend of These newer frameworks all rec-
three sub-paradigms.” What new para- ognize that the computing field has
digm does the blend produce? expanded dramatically in the past
Recent thinking about this question decade. Computing is no longer just
has produced new insights that, taken about algorithms, data structures, nu- exciting new subjects including Inter-
together, reveal a computing paradigm. merical methods, programming lan- net, Web science, mobile computing,
A hallmark of this thinking has been guages, operating systems, networks, cyberspace protection, user interface
to shift attention from computing ma- databases, graphics, artificial intelli- design, and information visualization.
chines to information processes, in- gence, and software engineering, as it The resulting commercial applications
cluding natural information processes was prior to 1989. It now also includes have spawned new research challenges
in social networking, endlessly evolving
Table 1. Sub-paradigms embedded in computing.
computation, music, video, digital pho-
tography, vision, massive multiplayer
Math Science Engineering online games, user-generated content,
Initiation Characterize objects Observe a possible Create statements
and much more.
of study (definition) recurrence or pattern of about desired system The newer frameworks also recog-
phenomena (hypothesis) actions and responses nize the growing use of the scientific
(requirements)
(experimental) method to understand
Conceptualization Hypothesize possible re- Construct a model that Create formal statements computations. Heuristic algorithms,
lationships among objects explains the observation of system functions and
(theorem) and enables predictions interactions (specifica- distributed data, fused data, digital fo-
(model) tions) rensics, distributed networks, social
Realization Deduce which relation- Perform experiments and Design and implement networks, and automated robotic sys-
ships are true (proof) collect data (validate) prototypes (design) tems, to name a few, are often too com-
Evaluation Interpret results Interpret results Test the prototypes plex for mathematical analysis but yield
Action Act on results (apply) Act on results (predict) Act on results (build) to the scientific method. These scien-
tific approaches reveal that discovery is
as important as construction or design.
Discovery and design are closely linked:
Table 2. The computing paradigm. the behavior of many large designed
systems (such as the Web) is discovered
Computing
by observation; we design simulations
to imitate discovered information pro-
Initiation Determine if the system to be built (or observed) can be
represented by information processes, either finite (terminating) cesses. Moreover, computing has devel-
or infinite (continuing interactive). oped search tools that are helping make
Conceptualization Design (or discover) a computational model (for example, scientific discoveries in many fields.
an algorithm or a set of computational agents) that generates The newer frameworks also recog-
the system’s behaviors.
nize natural information processes in
Realization Implement designed processes in a medium capable of executing
its instructions. Design simulations and models of discovered
many fields including sensing and cog-
processes. Observe behaviors of information processes. nition in living beings, thought process-
Evaluation Test the implementation for logical correctness, consistency es, social interactions, economics, DNA
with hypotheses, performance constraints, and meeting original transcription, immune systems, and
goals. Evolve the realization as needed. quantum systems. Computing concepts
Action Put the results to action in the world. Monitor for continued enable new discoveries and understand-
evaluation.
ings of these natural processes.
The central focus of the comput-
ing paradigm can be summarized as

DECEMB E R 20 0 9 | VO L. 5 2 | NO. 12 | COMMUNI CATION S OF TH E AC M 29

viewpoints

information processes—natural or ing, such as the noncomputability of

constructed processes that transform halting problems. Self-reference is com-
information. They can be discrete or mon in natural information processes;
continuous. the cell, for example, contains its own
Computing represents informa- blueprint.
tion processes as “expressions that do The interpretation “computational

 work.” An expression is a description of

the steps of a process in the form of an
thinking”12 embeds nicely into this
paradigm. The paradigm describes not


  (often large) accumulation of instruc-
tions. Expressions can be artifacts, such
only a way of thinking, but a system of
practice.
as programs designed and created by
  
 people, or descriptions of natural occur-
rences, such as DNA and DNA transcrip-
Conclusion
The distinctions discussed here offer

 tion in biology. Expressions are not only
representational, they are generative:
a distinctive and coherent higher-level
description of what we do, permitting

 they create actions when interpreted
(executed) by appropriate machines.
us to better understand and improve
our work and better interact with peo-
Since expressions are not directly ple in other fields. The engineering-
constrained by natural laws, we have science debates present a confusing
evolved various methods that enable us picture that adversely affects policies
to have confidence that the behaviors on innovation, science, and technology,
generated do useful work and do not the flow of funds into various fields for
create unwanted side effects. Some of education and research, the public per-
these methods rely on formal mathe- ception of computing, and the choices
matics to prove that the actions generat- young people make about careers.
ed by an expression meet specifications. We are well aware that the comput-
Many more rely on experiments to vali- ing paradigm statement needs to be
date hypotheses about the behavior of discussed widely. We offer this as an
actions and discover the limits of their opening statement in a very important
reliable operation. and much needed discussion.
Table 2 summarizes the computing





paradigm with this focus. While it con- References
1. Arden, B.W. What Can Be Automated: Computer
tains echoes of engineering, science, Science and Engineering Research Study (COSERS).





  and mathematics, it is distinctively dif- MIT Press, 1983.
2. Denning, P. Computing is a natural science. Commun.
 

 
 
  ferent because of its central focus on ACM 50, 7 (July 2007), 15–18.



 
      information processes.5 It allows engi- 3. Denning, P. Who are we? Commun. ACM 44, 2 (Feb.
2001), 15–19.
neering and science to be present to- 4. Denning, P. et al. Computing as a discipline. Commun.
 

  
 
 gether without having to choose. ACM 32, 1 (Jan. 1989), 9–23.
5. Denning, P. and P.S. Rosenbloom. Computing: The
      There is an interesting distinction fourth great domain of science. Commun. ACM 52, 9
between computational expressions (Sept. 2009), 27–29.

   
 6. Freeman, P. Public talk “IT Trends: Impact,

 


   and the normal language of engineer- Expansion, Opportunity,” 4th frame; www.cc.gatech.
ing, science, and mathematics. Engi- edu/staff/f/freeman/Thessaloniki

 
  7. Freeman, P. and Aspray, W. The Supply of Information
neers, scientists, and mathematicians Technology Workers in the United States. Computing
Research Association, 1999.
endeavor to position themselves as out- 8. Newell, A., Perlis, A.J., and Simon, H.A. Computer





side observers of the objects or systems science, letter in Science 157, 3795 (Sept. 1967),
1373–1374.
they build or study. Outside observers 9. Perlis, A.J. The computer in the university. In
are purely representational. Thus, tradi- Computers and the World of the Future, M.
Greenberger, Ed. MIT Press, 1962, 180–219.
tional blueprints, scientific models, and
 
 
 mathematical models are not execut-
10. Rosenbloom, P.S. A new framework for computer
science and engineering. IEEE Computer (Nov. 2004),
31–36.
 
  able. (However, when combined with
computational systems, they give auto-
11. Simon, H. The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press
(1st ed. 1969, 3rd ed. 1996).
12. Wing, J. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3
matic fabricators, simulators of mod- (Mar. 2006), 33–35.
els, and mathematical software librar-
ies.) Computational expressions are not Peter J. Denning ([email protected]) is the director of the
constrained to be outside the systems Cebrowski Institute for Information Innovation and
Superiority at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey,
they represent. The possibility of self- CA, and is a past president of ACM.
reference makes for very powerful com- Peter A. Freeman ([email protected]) is
putational schemes based on recursive Emeritus Founding Dean and Professor at Georgia Tech
and Former Assistant Director of NSF for CISE.
designs and executions, and also for
very powerful limitations on comput- Copyright held by author.

30 CO MM U N I CAT I ON S O F TH E AC M | DEC E MBER 2 009 | VO L. 52 | NO. 12