> Oh, and computer science papers never leave out trivial steps or assume domain knowledge?
That's irrelevant. The guy's argument is that computer programs don't leave out information: "If all this information isn't available in some form, the program simply will not work, as the interpreter/compiler will not know what to do with the program. This forces a certain intellectual honesty on the process of executing a program; nothing can be left unspecified."
Clearly, computer science papers are written by humans and will typically lack rigour, which has both advantages and disadvantages. Human communication can contain bullshit, but you can't bullshit a computer.
His conclusion is that computer science is more rigorous than mathematics. His argument is that programs written for computers are more explicit than proofs written for humans. The conclusion and the argument don't match up at all. Computer science, as a subject, is no more rigorous than mathematics.
That's irrelevant. The guy's argument is that computer programs don't leave out information: "If all this information isn't available in some form, the program simply will not work, as the interpreter/compiler will not know what to do with the program. This forces a certain intellectual honesty on the process of executing a program; nothing can be left unspecified."
Clearly, computer science papers are written by humans and will typically lack rigour, which has both advantages and disadvantages. Human communication can contain bullshit, but you can't bullshit a computer.