unfortunate word choice, I think, since <i>process</i> is sort of the point of the whole affair. Not in the sense you meant it there, of course, but in the more general sense of formalizing &quot;how to&quot;, from developing adequate descriptions of <i>what</i> - data structures and so forth - to finding the best ways of getting from point <i>a</i> to point <i>b</i> (or finding out that there isn&#x27;t one and looking for a good-enough good-enough). It&#x27;s almost a shame that <i>computer</i> and <i>electronic computer</i> are nearly synonymous now; it leads to the idea that CS is somehow a science about these electronic computing machines rather than about computing itself. While it&#x27;s true that advances in CS have implications for the machines and the way we use them, that&#x27;s almost incidental to the task of finding the best ways to describe, express and carry out a process. And if it turns out that a (seemingly) ridiculous amount of time is spent at the beginning demonstrating that adding in a place system is usually better than counting, and multiplying is better than adding the same number a whole bunch of times, well, if all you&#x27;ve gotten from that is that typing &quot;*&quot; saves you a few keystrokes, then you&#x27;ve missed the point.