4 ms·
I remember going to the computers section at the London's Science Museum a couple years ago and being fascinated by mechanical calculators and the first compute
by Philomath 10y ago
I remember going to the computers section at the London's Science Museum a couple years ago and being fascinated by mechanical calculators and the first computers.
It's so amazing to see how fast computers have evolved but it makes me wonder if computing was more interesting back then because of all the things that were yet to be discovered or now that everything is connected and anyone can access information and do anything with a 200$ laptop.
- analog31 10y agoGranted, I don't go all the way back to the early days, but learned to program in 1981. I think a possible change is that our expectations for software have escalated, so that the learning curve is longer because of the complexity needed to manage things like UI, networking, and graphics. Programming was more fun for me in those days, and today I gravitate to programming tasks that don't involve writing commercial quality apps. Back then, you could easily make software that looked like commercial software -- albeit with fewer features -- because everything was just a text display. Today, if you say "I want to learn programming because I'm interested in games," well you've got a long road ahead of you to make something that doesn't look lame. It's just that in the past everything looked lame. ;-) This may explain the appeal of things like Arduino and Raspberry Pi, where projects don't need an elaborate skin and high performance in order to be interesting and cool.
- digi_owl 10y agoThe crazy thing is that, particularly with games, the number of actual programmers have stayed pretty much the same, but the number of artists etc has downright exploded. At the same time the quality of the games may well have stagnated or even regressed.
- RodgerTheGreat 10y agoAAA games are like Hollywood blockbuster action movies: They're insanely expensive to make, so investors and studios are less likely to take risks. The mainstream gaming industry also caters to far broader demographics than ever before, so the streamlined common denominator is simpler, less nuanced and more homogenous. In "indie" lower-budget games there's a tremendous amount of innovation and creativity. There's also a lot of derivative cash-in crap. No worse than any other creative discipline, I think. One gem of a game makes up for thousands of failed attempts.
- digi_owl 10y agoI just wish that the distribution system of choice didn't involve me having to put all my eggs in some corporate controlled basket. I can live with losing a game or two because of me mistreating the storage media etc. But right now i risk losing access to all purchased games because of error on some server somewhere.
- digi_owl 10y agoEvery new technology seems to follow an S curve. It has a slow takeoff time because the bootstraps has to be figured out and the discoveries distributed. Then comes the exponential climb and as the low handing fruits of refinement are plucked and money comes pouring in. Then it flattens out again as the ROI scare away investors looking for a quick buck.
- DanBC 10y agoThe early mechanical calculators are beautiful. http://history-computer.com/MechanicalCalculators/Pioneers/Morland.html http://history-computer.com/MechanicalCalculators/Pioneers/M...