>>4
I admit my argument is fuzzy. He favors the removal of worked examples in favor of algorithms, and promotes programming, and debugging as powerful exercises. Further he states: ``Also, once formalized procedurally, a mathematical idea becomes a tool that can be used directly to compute results.'' Now my intuition from these claims taken together is that he wants to remove practice.
If computer science isn't a science, and it isn't about computers, than we can remove entirely induction and computers going in exactly the opposite direction while preserving the desired aspects of computer science (and the only parts of it which really exist) hoare logic (or equivalent) and analysis of algorithms.