-- Hal Abelson (1986)

He also added (prepended, to be precise) that it's not a science. :)

Also, the AP test that we had to take after all was said and done was required to be done in pencil. So it was good to be used to writing pseudocode and actual code in pencil.

In college, I wouldn't have even considered typing my notes during class. I'd say about half the students in my classes used pencils, the other half typed (but were always actually checking facebook, looking at reddit, etc.). After a while, I stopped taking notes altogether when I figured out they really don't help me in any way and I never go back to them (anything I could forget is a google search and a stack overflow answer away).

You would want to be the Dolores Umbridge of high school computer science?

That would be a disservice to the students. Being able to code is probably the best predictor for students successfully completing a CS degree.

I personally avoid using a word "proof" to mean anything other than a mathematical proof. It can be done with code, for sure, but as grandparent said, usually isn't.

And there is such a thing as a correct implementation of an algorithm. Running it does not exactly prove things either, and it might not necessarily work on actual hardware, but it does show that the person understands at least part of the material.

That would be as about as engaging as a biology class without microscopes or a chemistry class without labs.

That sounds like a sure way to make sure any students who took that class would be very disengaged.

One example would be modal logic. There is something inherently attractive about reasoning about time. Once you put it into context, it is very difficult to not find it inspiring.

figuring out how to get your shit to work and debugging it on the computer you're using is the actual hard part of CS.