I'm not sure I agree with the authors argument that you don't need to use computers to be a computer scientist. Computer science, to be a bit recursive, is the science of solving problems with a computer. Much in the way a hammer is the tool by which a carpenter builds a chair (I know it takes more than one tool) the skill of programming is the tool by which the scientist implements their solution. In both cases, it's not possible to separate the theoretical aspects of the profession from the implementation so easily.<p>A computer scientist is a computer scientist because he/she uses the computer - i.e. programs it or comes up with a recipie others can follow in programming it - to solve a particular problem. If you never use the computer you become something else - mathematician, philosopher, etc. In the same way a carpenter who never builds a chair is probably not really a carpenter. Lumberjack? Architect? Engineer? All of these are possible. But in both cases the implementation of the idea is an important part of the job description.<p>I think the real difficulty (and what I suspect is bothering the author) is that saying "I program computers" is a gross oversimplification of the task at hand. People, probably unfairly, tend to focus on the end product as the basis of your job description. In many skilled professions, like computer science, that model is often inaccurate. Saying "I program computers" or "I make chairs" is deeply unsatisfying becuase it no where near encompases what you actually do and that sucks.