It is a little tough to slog through now, though I&#x27;m sure it would&#x27;ve been pretty enthralling in &#x27;67. I liked this from the conclusion quite a bit, though:<p><i>A computer is like a violin. You can imagine a novice trying first a phonograph and then a violin. The latter, he says, sounds terrible. That is the argument we have heard from our humanists and most of our computer scientists. Computer programs are good, they say, for particular purposes, but they aren&#x27;t flexible. Neither is a violin, or a typewriter, until you learn how to use it.</i><p>I also liked what seems to be a pretty central point of the article (which I admittedly only skimmed): just because some medium (e.g. computer programming) has very precise requirements (e.g. in terms of syntax) for the <i>forms</i> expressions can take on, does not imply that the content of what can be expressed is similarly constrained.