Singularity Is Near – Kurzweil meets Dijkstra

the singularity is near Ray Kurzweil book cover

While reading Ray Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near, I stumbled upon a quote attributed to computer scientist Edsger W. Dijkstra that made me pause, not because of what it said, but because of how it was used.

The Disputed Quote

Kurzweil cites Dijkstra as saying: “Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes.”

It’s a clever aphorism that sounds exactly like something Dijkstra would say. There’s just one problem: the attribution is disputed, and the original source remains elusive.

Searching for the Source

I dove into the Dijkstra archive at the University of Texas, which contains his extensive collection of EWD manuscripts. Despite searching through his papers, I couldn’t find this exact quote. Wikiquote also lists the attribution as disputed.

Could Dijkstra have said it? Absolutely. Despite being a world-renowned computer scientist, he famously avoided using computers for his work, reportedly owning one only to read email and browse the web. For him, computer science truly was about ideas, not machines.

But the lack of a verifiable source matters—especially in a book making grand claims about the future.

Context Matters: Why This Quote Feels Out of Place

Kurzweil places this quote in a chapter discussing exponential growth, Moore’s Law, and paradigm shifts. But the connection feels forced. The Dijkstra quote speaks to the philosophical nature of computer science as a discipline. It doesn’t illuminate anything about exponential technological progress or the coming singularity.

This seemingly minor misplacement reveals a larger issue with The Singularity Is Near: the blending of rigorous scientific facts with personal predictions that lack the same level of substantiation.

Two Visionaries, Two Approaches

The contrast between Dijkstra and Kurzweil is instructive:

Edsger Dijkstra: An unconventional theoretical scientist known for mathematical rigor and precision. Every statement in his EWD manuscripts was carefully reasoned and documented.

Ray Kurzweil: An unconventional futuristic engineer and inventor. His predictions are bold, optimistic, and often based on extrapolating current trends.

You might expect Dijkstra to be dry and academic, while Kurzweil would be the more engaging personality. But here’s the surprise: the biggest difference between their work isn’t their subject matter or their ambition—it’s humor.

The Missing Ingredient: Humor

Dijkstra’s writings are filled with wit, self-awareness, and intellectual playfulness. He could be cutting in his criticism, but always with a touch of humor that acknowledged the absurdity of certain positions. This humor wasn’t just stylistic. It was a sign of intellectual honesty and humility.

Kurzweil’s The Singularity Is Near, despite its grand vision and fascinating ideas, takes itself entirely seriously. Every prediction is presented with confidence. Every trend will continue. Every obstacle will be overcome. There’s little room for doubt, irony, or the acknowledgment that futurism is, by nature, speculative.

The Problem with Unquestioning Optimism

This lack of humor—and the self-awareness it represents—makes Kurzweil’s predictions less credible, not more. When you can’t laugh at yourself or acknowledge the limits of your knowledge, you risk becoming a prophet rather than a scientist.

Dijkstra understood that computer science required both rigor and humility. He documented his sources, admitted when he was speculating, and never confused his hopes with inevitability.

Kurzweil’s work would be stronger if it borrowed more from Dijkstra’s approach: not just his ideas, but his intellectual honesty.

What We Can Learn

The misattribution (or at least unverified attribution) of the Dijkstra quote is a small detail, but it’s emblematic. It suggests a book that prioritizes narrative momentum over scholarly precision. That’s not necessarily wrong for a work of futurism, but readers should understand what they’re getting: a compelling vision more than a rigorous prediction.

When reading about the future of technology, it’s worth asking: Is this backed by verifiable evidence, or is this someone’s optimistic extrapolation? Are the sources documented? Is there room for doubt?

Dijkstra would have insisted on all three.

Further Reading:

Related posts:

Dijkstra in EWD 32 on the tool, how it should be worthy our love, and show: Elegance and Beauty

E.W. Dijkstra and McJones at a conference in marktoberdorf 1973

Reading Dutch computer scientist Edsger Dijkstra’s EWD’s.

The State of Programming in 1962

In EWD 32 Dijkstra shares his “meditations” on the state of the Art (or rather Science, as he prefers to say) of Programming. Machine design was ugly, programming as a discipline was undeveloped. This was 1962.

Programmers were hired for applying tricks and Dijkstra loves the development that there is

… the slowly growing group of people who think it more valuable that the man should have a clear and systematic mind.

The Commercialization Problem

He goes on to discuss how programmers and machine designers should collaborate to create better machines and programming languages. This was very necessary because Dijkstra believed that at that time, the computer manufacturing industry was taking over computer design from universities. But this brought a commercial angle to computer design that Dijkstra was unhappy with.

They seem to design for the customer that believes the salesman who tells him that machine so-and-so is just the machine he wants.

What Dijkstra Meant by “The Tool”

Dijkstra goes on to share his thoughts on how to improve The Tool – by which he means the programming language, translator, and machine. Nowadays, with so many languages and machines, we hardly think about this tool. We think of tools as tools: a given rather than a thought. And of course, we have massive debates about programming languages, hardware, etc. But some of the concerns have disappeared. Nobody really seems to care about machine design anymore. It has become a commodity. It should be fast and robust. Hardware hardly provides any distinguishing features. If so, it is about size and energy, not about performance and reliability.

The Eternal Quality: Elegance and Beauty

But the last one he mentions is an eternal difference, one which we still haven’t landed on. And maybe we never will. Because it is a subjective one. A characteristic you wouldn’t expected in our Beta world of computers and programmers.

As my very last remark I should like to stress that the tool as a whole should have still another quality. It is a much more subtle one; whether we appreciate it or not depends much more on our personal taste and education and I shall not even try to define it. The tool should be charming, it should be elegant, it should be worthy of our love. This is no joke, I am terribly serious about this. In this respect the programmer does not differ from any other craftsman: unless he loves his tools it is highly improbable that he will ever create something of superior quality.

At the same time these considerations tell us the greatest virtues a program can show: Elegance and Beauty.

Edsger Dijkstra: the world’s first tech blogger (Before the Internet existed)

Imagine a world-renowned computer scientist who publishes informal notes covering everything from theoretical algorithms to travel complaints to angry letters about programming language design. He writes with wit, uses everyday analogies, coins playful terminology, and distributes his thoughts in numbered manuscripts to anyone interested.

Sound like a modern tech blogger? This was Edsger Dijkstra in the 1960s. Decades before the internet, let alone blogging platforms, existed.

Who was Edsger Dijkstra?

Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002) was a Dutch computer scientist whose influence on programming is hard to overstate. He:

  • Created the shortest path algorithm (Dijkstra’s algorithm), foundational to GPS, routing, and network protocols, and, for the math nerd, really a super elegant approach
  • Invented semaphores, the synchronization primitives that enable concurrent programming
  • Championed structured programming, helping eliminate the chaos of “spaghetti code”
  • Won the 1972 Turing Award, computing’s highest honor

But beyond these technical achievements, Dijkstra was a remarkable communicator with a distinctive literary style, something rare in computer science then and now.

The EWD manuscripts: a blog before blogs

From 1959 until shortly before his death, Dijkstra wrote over 1,300 manuscripts labeled “EWD” (his initials: Edsger Willem Dijkstra) followed by a number. These weren’t formal academic papers submitted to journals. They were something else entirely. Something we’d now recognize instantly as blog posts.

What made EWDs blog-like?

Frequency and Informality: Unlike academic papers that took months or years to publish, Dijkstra wrote EWDs whenever inspiration struck. Some were polished drafts of papers; others were rough notes, travel observations, or rants dashed off in response to current events in computing.

Range of Topics: Just as a modern blogger might write about their technical expertise, their travels, and their opinions on industry trends, Dijkstra’s EWDs covered:

  • Deep theoretical computer science
  • Algorithm designs and proofs
  • Trip reports from conferences
  • Critiques of programming languages and practices
  • Philosophical reflections on education
  • Complaints about bureaucracy

Personal Voice: Academic writing demands objectivity and formality. Blog writing encourages personality. Dijkstra’s EWDs read like conversations with a witty friend who happens to be explaining complex algorithms.

Open Distribution: Dijkstra physically mailed photocopies of his EWDs to colleagues and interested parties worldwide. This was his subscription list, a pre-internet version of email newsletters or RSS feeds.

Handwritten Format: Most EWDs were handwritten (Dijkstra famously avoided using computers for writing), giving them an intimate, personal quality, like reading someone’s notebooks rather than their published works.

Dijkstra’s voice: precision with personality

What makes the EWDs exceptional isn’t just their content, it is how Dijkstra wrote. Consider this opening from EWD 28, launching into a theoretical discussion about machines and languages:

“A machine defines (by its very structure) a language, viz. its input language: conversely, the semantic definition of a language specifies a machine that understands it. In other words: machine and language are two faces of one and the same coin. I am going to describe such a coin. I leave it entirely to you to decide which of these two aspects of the subject matter of my talk you think the most important as it is rather ridiculous in both aspects.”

That final phrase – the “rather ridiculous in both aspects” – is pure Dijkstra. He’s about to present serious theoretical work, but he can’t resist acknowledging its absurdity. This is intellectual honesty with a wink.

Examples of Dijkstra’s humor and style

Hotel Analogies: In EWD 54, explaining complex I/O coordination, Dijkstra compares process management to running a hotel. Guests check in (processes request I/O), occupy rooms (memory allocation), and check out (operations complete). It’s technically precise and charmingly accessible.

Invented Terminology: Writing in Dutch, Dijkstra coined “tandepoetsprogramma” (toothbrushing program) for initialization routines that clean up state, because they prepare the system like brushing your teeth prepares you for sleep.

Casual Asides: Throughout technical discussions, you’ll find phrases like:

  • “Dat is toch wel al te gek” (That’s just too crazy)
  • “Het is natuurlijk erg prettig” (It’s naturally quite pleasant)

Cutting Criticism: Dijkstra could be merciless when critiquing bad practices. His famous quote (or at least, famously attributed to him): “The use of COBOL cripples the mind; its teaching should, therefore, be regarded as a criminal offense.”

Why the EWDs still matter

Modern developers might wonder why anyone should read computer science papers from the 1960s-1990s. Several reasons:

1. The Writing Is Timeless: Dijkstra’s explanations remain clear and insightful regardless of technological changes. His discussion of elegance in programming (EWD 32) is as relevant today as in 1962.

2. Foundational Concepts: Many principles Dijkstra explored (concurrency, abstraction, correctness) are more important than ever as systems grow more complex.

3. Model for Technical Communication: Dijkstra proved that rigorous thinking and engaging writing aren’t opposites. Technical bloggers today are, consciously or not, following the path he blazed.

4. Historical Perspective: Understanding how pioneers grappled with fundamental problems helps us recognize when we’re encountering similar challenges in new contexts.

5. Pure Intellectual Pleasure: The EWDs are simply enjoyable to read. How many technical documents can claim that?

The Biography That Should Exist

Despite Dijkstra’s influence and fascinating life, there’s no comprehensive biography that captures both his technical genius and his literary personality. Most accounts focus on his algorithms and awards, missing the human complexity that made him remarkable.

A proper Dijkstra biography would explore:

  • His unconventional path (initially studying physics, his theoretical approach to a practical field)
  • His relationships with other computing pioneers
  • His fierce advocacy for rigor in programming
  • His teaching philosophy and influence on students
  • The development of his distinctive writing style
  • His role as a Dutch scientist in an American-dominated field
  • His prescient warnings about software complexity that proved prophetic

Someday, someone needs to write this book. Maybe I’ll end up kickstarting it myself.

Reading the EWDs today

The complete Dijkstra Archive is available online at the University of Texas, where his papers are preserved. You can read every EWD, often with both scanned handwritten originals and typed transcriptions.

Each is a glimpse into a brilliant mind that refused to sacrifice clarity or personality for technical precision, because Dijkstra understood that good thinking requires both.

For today’s technical writers

Dijkstra’s EWDs offer a challenge to modern technical bloggers, documentation writers, and computer science communicators: Can we match his combination of rigor and readability? Can we make complex ideas accessible without dumbing them down? Can we be both precise and personal?

The best technical writing today, whether it’s blog posts, documentation, or papers, channels something of Dijkstra’s spirit: deep knowledge presented with clarity, humor, and humanity.

In that sense, every thoughtful technical blogger is continuing Dijkstra’s project. We’re all writing EWDs now; we just call them blog posts and press “publish” instead of photocopying and mailing them.

But we should aspire to write them half as well as Dijkstra did, with his elegance, his wit, and his refusal to let rigor become rigid or science become sterile.

Further Reading:

Related Articles on This Blog:

Richard Dawkins and the Expert’s Pitfall: A Critique of The Selfish Gene Footnote

the selfish gene - richard dawkins book cover

The Vile, Yet Correct Critique of Hoyle

In the 30th anniversary edition of ‘The Selfish Gene’ (2006), Richard Dawkins writes a vile but correct comment on Fred Hoyle’s misrepresentation of Darwinism in an endnote (pp. 277-278). He ends his note:

Publishers should correct the misapprehension that a scholar’s distinction in one field implies authority in another. And as long as that misapprehension exists, distinguished scholars should resist the temptation to abuse it.

This is a very accurate observation. But on the same page, in the note referenced in the main text (page 59 of the 30th Anniversary edition), Dawkins almost falls into the trap himself.

richard dawkins portait photo
Richard Dawkins

The Stain on the White Robe: Dawkins’ Error

The note’s text to the main text is so incredibly incorrect that it is pretty funny, given that he does this on the same page as his scolding of Hoyle.

In the note, Dawkins wants to explain Daniel Dennett’s theory of consciousness. Although Dennett has tried to explain his ideas in several books, Dawkins wants to summarize Dennett’s work in this two-page note for unclear reasons.

daniet dennett portrait photo
Daniel Dennett

Incorrect Analogies from Computer Science

Dawkins takes two technical ideas from the world of computers to illustrate his ideas: the concept of a virtual machine and ’the distinction between serial and parallel processors’.

The Virtual Machine

Dawkins starts by explaining what a virtual machine is incorrectly. He mentions the Macintosh User Interface as an example of a virtual machine. The Mac is a great machine, but the Macintosh User Interface bears little resemblance to a virtual machine, and the connection with consciousness remains very unclear. Dawkins could have relied on the Wikipedia article for a correct description of virtual machines.

A virtual machine (VM) is a software-based “computer within your computer.” It lets you run a separate operating system (like Windows or Linux) in an isolated window, using your existing hardware. It’s like having a sandboxed PC inside your real one.

Serial and Parallel Processors

The story derails entirely when Dawkins turns to his description of ‘serial and parallel processors’. The piece is so incorrect that highlighting the individual errors here makes no sense. Since Dawkins fails to see the distinction between processors and processes. He starts wrong and worsens things in every sentence. And it’s not like this was rocket science at the time of writing. Parallel processing has been known and applied in computing since our own Edsger Dijkstra and others invented concepts like the semaphore and the indivisible instruction.

More linkages to Dennett’s work and that of his friend Douglas Hofstadter on page 59, where Dawkins discusses self-awareness and rejects ideas of self-awareness because

douglas r. hofstadter portrait photo
Douglas R. Hofstadter
godel escher bach by hofstadter book cover

it involves an infinite regress if there is a model of the model, why not a model of the model of the model …?

‘The Mind’s I‘ and also ‘Gödel, Escher, Bach – An Eternal Golden Braid‘ deal exactly with these issues.

The Salvation: A Self-Aware Disclaimer

So, can we conclude that Dawkins has fallen into the trap of asserting that a scholar’s distinction in one field implies authority in another?

As I said, almost. On page 280 Dawkins saves himself, on the edge, with this little remark:

the minds I by hofstadter book cover

‘The reader is advised to consult Dennett’s own account when it is published, rather than rely on my doubtless imperfect and impressionistic – maybe even embellished – one.’

How true.

I have never had such fun with academic footnotes.

linning the books of dennett, dawkins and hofstadter