>Now you are assuming that rigidly defined science is a useful category. I'm less sure about that.
It's useful for categorization (which is the overall topic). For formalization of concepts. Formalization is always useful for technical concepts. Programming is one of those things that requires formal definitions.
It's probably less useful for common communication. But that's not what I'm referring to. Sure in communication we don't require technical definitions. I'm not arguing for whether MY definition has utility in a variety of contexts.
I'm simply saying for the rigorous categorization being performed by the OP on what "theoretical computer science" is.... he should ALSO use the rigorous definitions of the Categories themselves.
It's useful for categorization (which is the overall topic). For formalization of concepts. Formalization is always useful for technical concepts. Programming is one of those things that requires formal definitions.
It's probably less useful for common communication. But that's not what I'm referring to. Sure in communication we don't require technical definitions. I'm not arguing for whether MY definition has utility in a variety of contexts.
I'm simply saying for the rigorous categorization being performed by the OP on what "theoretical computer science" is.... he should ALSO use the rigorous definitions of the Categories themselves.