I agree, but I&#x27;ll go further than you - I don&#x27;t think this essay is confusing at all. It&#x27;s simply nonsense - the kind of thing someone clever writes when they&#x27;re discussing a subject completely outside their area of competence.<p>CS can be a craft. It&#x27;s not one of the arts, not even if it&#x27;s beautifully put together, because the arts are not primarily about technique - they&#x27;re about capturing and distilling human experiences using allusions and associations to (re)create those experiences. Fluent technique is a useful tool that help with that, but it&#x27;s not the point.<p>(Modern art is a bit more limited than that, but that&#x27;s more or less what art meant for most of Western history.)<p>The experiences created by the most timeless art are focused, but also ambiguous and complicated. You can get lost in them, and although there&#x27;s often a clear theme, you can&#x27;t define the rest of what&#x27;s happening with absolute final precision.<p>That&#x27;s almost exactly the opposite of what good code does. Which is why &quot;That&#x27;s a clever, clean solution&quot; is an experience that exists in the craftsman&#x27;s world, and is either peripheral or completely absent from an artist&#x27;s view.<p>&gt;I think dropping &quot;science&quot; from &quot;Computer Science&quot; would help immeasurably.<p>At my university the joke was always that it should be called &quot;Computer Studies.&quot; Only a nugget of algorithmic research is genuinely scientific, and that lives in a tiny corner of the rest of the Pure Math. There could be a lot more formal provability, but going down that route would put a lot of programmers out of work, because the level of difficulty is much higher than that needed to crank out some JavaScript.<p>What&#x27;s left is usually neither rigorous nor beautiful.