Mainstream media are still keen to swallow the line that “real soon now” computer specialists will be redundant because fourth generation languages are so clever that clever people are not needed any more.
“Now vastly complex applications for businesses, for science and for leisure can be developed using sophisticated high-level tools and components.” he prattles. “Computer science curricula are old, stale and increasing irrelevant.”
Towards the end of his article it all becomes clear. “Here at De Montfort I run an ICT degree, which does not assume that programming is an essential skill. The degree focuses on delivering IT services in organisations, on taking a holistic view of computing in organisations, and on holistic thinking.”
I have never grasped the point of that kind of course. So you cater to people who want an IT career, but don’t have the core skills of the discipline? Why on earth do these people want to work in IT? Is there not some occupation they could find where they might be capable of grasping the essential skills?
He loves the car/software analogy. “Like cars, a limited number of people are interested in their construction, more live by supporting and maintaining them; most of us accept them as a black box, whose workings are of no interest but which confer status, freedom and convenience.”
Sure, the car industry needs many, many black box buyers, a moderate number of mechanics, a few engineers and designers, and very few theoretical purists. All industries, including computing do.
How many fresh graduates do you think the automotive industry need who take “a holistic view of” cars, but think understanding how an engine works is not “an essential skill”? Not very many I’ll wager.
The death of computer science is not just a fairy tale, it is also an enduring fairy tale. I am in the process of moving house, and cracked opened an old books on its way to the bin. Understanding Computer Science Advanced Concepts by Ray Bradley, Hutchinson Education, 1987 was a high school text book. He refers to the then current computers (late 1980s) as the fourth generation of computers. I don’t think that terminology has endured.
Under a heading “The Future” he writes “The development of the fifth generation machines promises to be the most significant yet. This is because of a fundamental re-think in the basic design of the machine. For example it should be possible to communicate with the machine in a natural language such as English. […] It should be possible for users to define their problems to the machine and for the machine to then develop the programs to solve them.”
That is not exactly how I recall computing in the 1990s panning out.
The death of computer science was a fairy tale in 1987, and 20 years later it is still a fairy tale. More powerful computers are not replacing programmers any more than calculators are replacing accountants or power tools are replacing carpenters.
What is considered a hard problem in computing changes over time but each era still has its hard problems that need smart people with a deep understanding of the fundamentals to solve.