Science & Tech Quote by Edsger Dijkstra

Dijkstra’s jab lands because it punctures a comforting misunderstanding: that a field is defined by its most visible tool. By pairing “computer science” with “computers,” he’s baiting the reader into the obvious mistake, then snapping the analogy shut with “astronomy” and “telescopes.” The telescope doesn’t explain the cosmos; it merely extends perception. Likewise, the computer doesn’t explain computation; it merely executes it. The wit is in how effortlessly he demotes the machine from star to instrument.

The subtext is classic Dijkstra: a suspicion of hype, a distaste for gadget-driven thinking, and an insistence that rigor matters more than machinery. He’s arguing for computer science as a discipline of ideas - abstraction, proof, complexity, correctness - not a trade school for whichever hardware happens to be fashionable. In the late 20th century, when computers were rapidly entering universities, governments, and business, “computer science” risked being treated as glorified appliance training. Dijkstra is drawing a border: the object of study is not the box on the desk but the deep structure of processes, languages, and algorithms that could, in principle, outlive any particular device.

There’s also an implied critique of short-termism. Tools age fast; principles compound. By choosing astronomy, he flatters computer science with an older sibling discipline, but he also issues a warning: if you confuse the instrument for the inquiry, you get better telescopes and worse understanding.