This well-written article is the latest in a series of articles published by Denning, who is interested in studying the general principles of the discipline of computing. It is in the form of a debate between a critic and an “apologet,” on viewing computer science as a science.

Denning argues quite convincingly that computer science meets practically every criterion for being a science:

• It follows Francis Bacon’s paradigm, by forming hypotheses and testing them through experiments, thereby making models that explain and predict phenomena in the world.

• It studies a particular class of phenomena: artificial and natural information processes.

• Some of its parts can be viewed as “arts,” useful practices that complement and enrich science.

• It has developed a collection of principles that enable important discoveries and solutions, and are not obvious to amateurs.

• It is constantly forming relations with other fields, which promises future development for computing research.

However, computer science has one principal difficulty: the credibility problem. Many claims and predictions made by computer scientists in the past did not happen. Denning cites Tichy’s research, which found that insufficient attention to testing new ideas and hypotheses has “lowered the credibility of our field as a science” [1], but argues that the situation has recently begun to improve. He relies on the younger generation of computer scientists. Unfortunately, this is the least convincing part of the article: if young people, as the author argues, do not question the validity of computer science, it remains unclear why he believes that these people are “more open to critical thinking.” Nevertheless, I tend to agree with the author that the science paradigm will probably quite soon become part of the mainstream perception of the computing discipline.