COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	\\M1BASL30\M2BASB30\M3BASI30
C00013 ENDMK
C⊗;
\\M1BASL30;\M2BASB30;\M3BASI30;
\F1\CApril 11, 1981











Dr. Don C. Dodson
Director, Program Development
Development Office
Varsi Hall


Dear Dr. Dodson:

\JFrank Duggan suggested I talk with you but, since this is a  \F3long\F1
story, I decided to explain the situation in writing initially.
\.

\C\F2The Course: EECS 129 --The Art of Computer Science\F1
\C\F2 Its Rationale\F1
\J
I am teaching a novel  course in Computer Science (EECS129 - The Art
of Computer Science). 
Several beliefs drove my design of this course:

(1) That the fundamental ideas of computation are quite simple, being well developed
in mathematical logic in the decade of the 30's.

(2) As a corollary, I believe that the majority  of computing developments 
in the period between 1940
and 1980 represent technological, not intellectual advances. We now have
hardware to realize the early results --a distinct advantage, but the
view of computing that has grown up distorts and limits one's perception
of the computational phenomenon; assembler, Fortran, Basic, Pascal, and ADA
all deal with a superficial manifestation. Unfortunately, the traditional
 approach to computing begins with the symptoms and not the cause, and
one seldom sees the principles.

(3) Next, there is an emerging awareness that the traditional conception
of computers is  outmoded. Two new languages, LOGO and Smalltalk, are  becoming
publicly available. These "personal computing" languages bring the computing
medium into the realm of  human-oriented computing. These two languages
(developed and MIT and Xerox, respectively) are (a) "fun to use" and (b) directly
related to those early mathematical results.

(4) The gap between the technical and the humanistic view of the
world is pointedly illustrated by their shared misconception of computation:
one seeing the physical phemonenon as an end in itself, the other seeing the
same phenomenon as an impersonal tool, devoid of intellectual substance.
The engineer is at least as misguided as the  humanist;
a classical case of the Sufi elephant. The approach in 129 shows that
\F3both\F1 views are grossly inaccurate.
\.



\C\F2The Course Structure\F1

\J
EECS 129 tries to address these issues in the following ways:

(1) Introduce the "fun" aspects of LOGO.  This language runs on Apple
computers, and  astounds the engineer as well
as the humanities person. As Pirsig remarks in \F3Zen and the Art of Motorcycle
Maintenance\F1, "Assembly of Japanese bicycle require [sic]  great  peace of
mind". The first week   of 129 was designed to establish the "peace of mind",
because the course is \F3Abstract Bicycle Construction\F1.

(2) Next we introduce the principles. Both "sides of the street" are at an equal 
disadvantage; the principles are no more complex than high school algebra.
Indeed, we began that way and  developed computational ideas from that simple base.
At the end of the second week they have seen some very powerful 
computing ideas, much more powerful than they yet realize.

(3) Build from those principles to the emerging view of computing as exemplified
by LOGO and Smalltalk.

(4) Explicate the mechanisms that make these very powerful languages look
so simple. This can be driven toward the theoretical end of the spectrum
in mathematical logic, or can be driven toward Computer Science practice
in a language, named LISP, that is the ancestor of both LOGO and Smalltalk.

(5) Relate these ideas to cultural changes. In particular, I find Spengler's
study of mathematics and culture particularly seductive. I believe there
is an emerging "Computer culture" in a very 
non-trivial sense. I have conjectures that fit the
Spengler model from the mathematical perspective; a further issue is the
connection of these ideas with other  phenomena in our society. 
Regardless of the
outcome of this hypothesizing, the effort in examining cultural interrelationship
will be worthwhile.
This "non-technical" component of EECS129 is, to me, at
least as important as the elaboration of the technical components.

(6)As a practical undercurrent, I designed this course to  utilize an
interactive programming laboratory. Part of the computing phenomenon
involves using the machine. This lab is not to indoctrinate students
with the rituals of hardware, software and typing, but to introduce 
the newer kinds of
computing tools that involve  a "culture shock" for those who are used to
the limited scope that traditional languages and machines  supply.
Indeed, a discussion of programming style --Pascal/ADA:Discipline versus 
LISP/LOGO/Smalltalk:Interaction is almost a religious issue.
It is important that students understand these issues.
This brings me to the kernel of my problem.
\.




\F2\CThe Difficulty\F1
\J
The difficulty with the course is the lack of machines. Currently, we are
borrowing two APPLEs from San Jose State on a part-time basis; I have
bought some hardware to upgrade them to run LOGO. I have also borrowed money
to buy one TRS-80 Model II that I will be using shortly to introduce LISP.
Indeed, an unfortunate situation; and one I brought on myself. Last
September, when I proposed this course, I had strong encouragment from
Texas Instruments that they would supply hardware, because they had "great
interest in education". Unfortunately, their "interest" was  diverted.
In the intervening months, at least a half-dozen computer companies and
four book publishers have taken much of my time to explain the proposal
and, in the final analysis, said it's a great idea but either "call us
when it's finished" or "all our funds and machines are tied up".
This week  I ran out of potential sources, and physical and emotional energy 
(I ran out of money long ago).

I believe it is \F3very\F1 important that this experiment succeed; it
represents a fresh breath in computing. If it fails it will be all too
easy for all concerned parties to fall back into their previous patterns.
The change \F3will\F1 have to come sometime in the future   but
in the interim the students and the University will have lost valuable
time.

Therefore --in conclusion of what must be the longest "begging letter"
you have ever received-- I am asking if you know of any possible sources
for either funds or 
for donated or loaned machines (for example, Apple II or TRS-80 Model II).
I can be reached through the EECS office at 984-4358. I appreciate
anything you can fo for this course.
\.
\←L\→S\←R\-L\/'2;\+L\→L

Yours sincerely,


John R. Allen
18215 Bayview Dr.
Los Gatos Ca, 95030
home (408) 353-3857

\←S\→L
CC: Dr Frank Duggan