I was wondering if you might comment on the history behind the formation of computer science, and in particular, on the subsequent overwhelming emphasis on implementation (studied via science/math), rather than specification (perhaps better studied as an art?).Would you make the same arguments about physics or biology? Computer science is foremost a science and trying to understand the nature of computation has its own beauty just like trying to understand the fundamental building blocks of the universe.
One might argue that two fields should have formed, analogous to architecture and engineering say.
Sure, the implementation part is important (e.g., efficiency), but what to implement should be equally important.
Sure, there are a few subfields of computer science where people try to come up with new sorts of applications, but I think this is worthy of much greater emphasis, a different undergraduate program, a different research methodology (perhaps not so "scientific," but more like "art"). Moreover, I suspect that completely different sorts of people would be attracted to this field.
The MIT Media Lab is perhaps the best example of what such a field would look like.
Can one teach "what to implement" any more than an art class can teach "what to paint"? Best for us to teach the theory and tools of computation and then let the world find neat ways to use computers as they already have in countless ways.