5 ms·

Its a bit weird being a small part of computer science. The big early movers and shakers were still around for most of our lives. The whole field is within li

by Tistel 11y ago

Its a bit weird being a small part of computer science. The big early movers and shakers were still around for most of our lives. The whole field is within living memory. Now they are starting to pass away. Engelbart, McArthy etc. Think how far physics got from Newton to the Manhattan project. Where will CS be in 100 years? We have so much work to do.

Lordarminius 11y ago
Its interesting that you say this. I made a similar point some time ago on another forum but I was ignored and even down voted there(no prize for guessing which forum that was) My idea was that you could gauge how far along a field has come by whether the pioneers were still alive/how far removed you were from them. CS despite huge advances is still in its toddler years. So, yes. More work to do and exciting days ahead.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  How does your idea handle situations when a field gets renamed, or simply subdivided? E.g. Newton died long ago, but pioneers of quantum chromodynamics are still alive and kicking.
  - Lordarminius 11y ago
    I cant truly say I have considered that angle. But I suppose subdividing a field creates new pioneers and a new field. Renaming it- that's a more tricky situation.(And I have no idea what quantum chromodynamics is!)
rimantas 11y ago
In physics we reverse engineer a very complex system given to us. In CS we create the system ourselves and there is some overlap with mathematics, so I doubt the progress will be as drastical.
coldtea 11y ago
>Think how far physics got from Newton to the Manhattan project. Where will CS be in 100 years? We have so much work to do. Might not be so. You're applying the same progress curve to both, but remember that Newton developed his theories at the start (or close) of the scientific era, without so many institutions, collaborations, communications, infrastructure, experimental apparatus, computer simulations, the necessary math etc. Computing was developed in the middle (or close) of the 20th century, and had all that. It also saw much faster development cycles, so the speedup curve we saw with physics since Newton won't really apply to it (I mean not in the same timescale: it could still apply "compressed" in the last 5 decades). I'd say we're already in the Manhattan project era of computing. And with Moore's law expiring and other limits reached in those areas, we wont be moving that faster in the future -- mostly like Physics did since 50s.
- sillysaurus3 11y ago
  I'd say we're already in the Manhattan project era of computing. There's no possible way. We were born at the beginning of civilization. There were the ancients, then us. A hundred thousand years from now, what we write today has a chance of still being around. The language that people speak will be completely alien. But what we write -- our programs -- will still be runnable. There will be emulators for our architectures, and random work from random people in 2015 AD will happen to persist to 102,283 AD. We're going to be the oldest ancients that they consider real. They'll be able to look at and interact with our work. And even modify it and remix it. And we'll be thought of as just barely more advanced than cavedwellers. Now, with that sort of context, there seems no possible chance that we can know how far away we are from the Manhattan project era of computing. Very far, suffice to say. To a certain extent, it's not possible to compare the progress in physics with computing. On one hand, we've unravelled nature to the point where there are no mysteries left except in high-energy physics. There's also no way to know how profoundly the remaining mysteries might impact the world. Whereas the depth and the mysteries within computing are eternal. If there are still humans in 102,283 AD, there will still be computing, and they'll still be coming up with ever-more complex ways of computing. All of the institutional effort between now and then will push the field way, way beyond the limited horizons that we can currently imagine.

by Tistel 11y ago

Lordarminius 11y ago

Its interesting that you say this. I made a similar point some time ago on another forum but I was ignored and even down voted there(no prize for guessing which forum that was) My idea was that you could gauge how far along a field has come by whether the pioneers were still alive/how far removed you were from them. CS despite huge advances is still in its toddler years. So, yes. More work to do and exciting days ahead.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
How does your idea handle situations when a field gets renamed, or simply subdivided? E.g. Newton died long ago, but pioneers of quantum chromodynamics are still alive and kicking.
- Lordarminius 11y ago
  I cant truly say I have considered that angle. But I suppose subdividing a field creates new pioneers and a new field. Renaming it- that's a more tricky situation.(And I have no idea what quantum chromodynamics is!)

rimantas 11y ago

In physics we reverse engineer a very complex system given to us. In CS we create the system ourselves and there is some overlap with mathematics, so I doubt the progress will be as drastical.

coldtea 11y ago

>Think how far physics got from Newton to the Manhattan project. Where will CS be in 100 years? We have so much work to do. Might not be so. You're applying the same progress curve to both, but remember that Newton developed his theories at the start (or close) of the scientific era, without so many institutions, collaborations, communications, infrastructure, experimental apparatus, computer simulations, the necessary math etc. Computing was developed in the middle (or close) of the 20th century, and had all that. It also saw much faster development cycles, so the speedup curve we saw with physics since Newton won't really apply to it (I mean not in the same timescale: it could still apply "compressed" in the last 5 decades). I'd say we're already in the Manhattan project era of computing. And with Moore's law expiring and other limits reached in those areas, we wont be moving that faster in the future -- mostly like Physics did since 50s.

sillysaurus3 11y ago
I'd say we're already in the Manhattan project era of computing. There's no possible way. We were born at the beginning of civilization. There were the ancients, then us. A hundred thousand years from now, what we write today has a chance of still being around. The language that people speak will be completely alien. But what we write -- our programs -- will still be runnable. There will be emulators for our architectures, and random work from random people in 2015 AD will happen to persist to 102,283 AD. We're going to be the oldest ancients that they consider real. They'll be able to look at and interact with our work. And even modify it and remix it. And we'll be thought of as just barely more advanced than cavedwellers. Now, with that sort of context, there seems no possible chance that we can know how far away we are from the Manhattan project era of computing. Very far, suffice to say. To a certain extent, it's not possible to compare the progress in physics with computing. On one hand, we've unravelled nature to the point where there are no mysteries left except in high-energy physics. There's also no way to know how profoundly the remaining mysteries might impact the world. Whereas the depth and the mysteries within computing are eternal. If there are still humans in 102,283 AD, there will still be computing, and they'll still be coming up with ever-more complex ways of computing. All of the institutional effort between now and then will push the field way, way beyond the limited horizons that we can currently imagine.