Hence the comparison with telescopes. But knowledge of a tool is not to be confused with the field itself. We are not programming computers per se. We are using computers to simulate formalisms that can be carried out by people, in our heads or on paper, largely because it is tedious, labor intensive, and would take us longer.
The intellectual distinction is essential and, sadly, one that many in the field seem not to understand. Many seem to subscribe to a kind of "computer atomism" which installs the physical device in the center as the really real with abstractions as epiphenomena or illusions; the real stuff, they claim, are the assembly - nay! - the bits - nay! - the atoms - nay! - ... No. Assembly, bits, atoms, these are all irrelevant and incidental as far as the language and the formalism we're using is concerned. They are details that concern the instrument, not the language, which stands on its own.
I agree with not placing the computer at the center. After all it's a tool.
But I struggle with the idea that we can ignore the technical details. After all, even the highest abstraction comes from the physicality of the universe.
But maybe you are saying that the limitations of a tool shouldn't forbid you from thinking at the higher language level.
Or maybe I am just not enlightened enough to understand your point, to which I can only apologize.
The intellectual distinction is essential and, sadly, one that many in the field seem not to understand. Many seem to subscribe to a kind of "computer atomism" which installs the physical device in the center as the really real with abstractions as epiphenomena or illusions; the real stuff, they claim, are the assembly - nay! - the bits - nay! - the atoms - nay! - ... No. Assembly, bits, atoms, these are all irrelevant and incidental as far as the language and the formalism we're using is concerned. They are details that concern the instrument, not the language, which stands on its own.