Wow, ACM is taking a reputability hit for this piece. Who's editing that publication now?
If it were how the social sciences need to embrace computing, that would be a legitimate claim from my experience at University.
If it were how the social sciences need to embrace computing, that would be a legitimate claim from my experience at University.
At the same time there are usually 2-4 articles per issue that are very good. CACM also presents curated lists of interesting research articles, so (as practitioners) we do not need to sift through every article from every conference proceeding or journal publication talking about how some squeezed an extra tiny incremental fraction of x out of an O(n^x) algorithm or incremental papers discussing how compiler type inference algorithms could be improved this tiny little bit with this one weird trick.
And we occasionally get really insightful practitioner articles as well; for example, some interesting bits of how Google manages their code base, or what an incredibly difficult problems Coverity faces when statically-analyzing (supposedly)-compliant C/C++ code.