Here's an abstract, entitled: The Turing Machine as a Boundary Object: Sorting Out American Science and European Engineering, co-authored by Erhard Schüttpelz, featuring Marvin Minsky and Edsger Dijkstra in the late 1960s and early 1970s. To be presented this summer in London at the 11th British Wittgenstein Society Conference: Wittgenstein and AI.
One of the questions that keeps me awake (during the day) is the following one:
What did a “computer program” mean to Actor X in 1973?
For example, both Christopher Strachey and Edsger Dijkstra viewed a “computer program” as a mathematical object, albeit of a very different kind . (A decade or more earlier, both men did not associate computer programs with mathematical objects pur sang). But what about large parts of the North American computer industry in 1973? How did actors in this field view a “computer program” in 1973?
Something significant happened during the 1950s in the history of science & technology. By 1950, logicians and linguists had been studying “artificial languages” and “natural languages” for centuries. But, the words “programming language” were not used at all. By 1959, however, those words had become common currency. And, in today's digital world, the absence of “programming languages” is totally unthinkable.
As Dijkstra was fond of pointing out, the community of people who call themselves “software engineers” is marred nowadays by an abundance of second rate work — so much so that others have come to disdain the term and call themselves “computer scientists”. But in the 60’s and 70’s, people such as Hoare, Wirth, and Dijkstra proudly and properly called themselves software engineers, and managed to be simultaneously rigorous and useful.
To clarify his step-wise program composition, Dijkstra used terms like “program layers” and “levels of abstraction” in his `Notes on Structured Programming' [1, Chapter 1]. These terms were not well defined as Dijkstra conceded later. As a result, Dijkstra's exposition — although extremely rich in content — was difficult to understand completely. See e.g. Denning's clarifying article on Structured Programming  or my interview with Liskov who mentions Parnas in this regard .
In his 1972 `Notes on Structured Programming' [1, Chapter 1], Dijkstra introduced a methodology called step-wise program composition. He explained how to compose a program in minute steps, deciding each time as little as possible so that the correctness of each step is obvious.
Although he was a theoretical physicist by education, Dijkstra had been exposed to his mother's mathematical thinking during most of his teens. This observation helps explain why he continued to seek general mathematical arguments in his 1972 `Notes on Structured Programming'.