5 ms·

We see the same thing in software. I've heard people answer "Grace Hopper", "Ada Lovelace", "Charles Babbage", "Alan Turing", etc. to the same question about th

We see the same thing in software. I've heard people answer "Grace Hopper", "Ada Lovelace", "Charles Babbage", "Alan Turing", etc. to the same question about the origin of computers. The real thing is the question needs to be more specific. Is it the origin of programmable computers? The origin of programming itself? The origin of non-programmable computers? And so on. I'm no epidemiologist, but I imagine something similar is at work here. As you say, different people performed different key roles in the whole process which constitutes "discovery" of Ebola.

segfaultbuserr 7y ago
> I've heard people answer "Grace Hopper", "Ada Lovelace", "Charles Babbage", "Alan Turing", etc. to the same question about the origin of computers. You forgot Gottfried W. Leibniz. Another question is its historical impacts: did it have any influence on its further development? A good account of history should document and analyze them from different perspectives. You can have the credit of being the "first" even it doesn't have much influence, and you can have the credit of being influential even it doesn't have much publicity. And often the story is not black-and-white. For example, we can say Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine was never completed and conclude that it has no influence on its further design. But we you know that the story of Charles Babbage helped Howard Aiken at IBM selling his machine? (Harvard Mark I).
- emmelaich 7y ago
  I thought of Leibniz too. > "In Leibniz's mind, “this language will be the greatest instrument of reason,” for “when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate, without further ado, and see who is right”"
mehrdadn 7y ago
3 of those 4 just seem... plain wrong? The first design of a general-purpose computer was obviously Babbage's. Wikipedia says work on it started in 1833, after the difference engine (already completed by 1822). He even developed two dozen programs for it between 1837-1840. He just ran into funding issues for his projects. Now if for some reason you feel an urge to hold an external issue like the lack of funding against him when giving credit, then you'd give credit to Konrad Zuse's Z3 (1941) for the first completed implementation. The fact that most computer scientists haven't even heard his name is evidence enough in my eyes that that's a thin rope to hang onto, but whatever. Beyond that, I find mention of those 3 other people just bizarre. If the person who actually produced the first design for a computer started its implementation doesn't get the credit, and the person who finally built the first one doesn't get the credit either... then are you sure your credit criteria are actually reasonable?!
- _carl_jung 7y ago
  I suppose most of the people I have heard these names from are not in the same league as you. I appreciate this summary though thanks. I also regret my sarcasm, sorry.
- pflats 7y ago
  I don't think they're particularly hard arguments to make. Turing is the easiest: What is a computer? What isn't a computer? If you can't answer that question, you don't have a computer. The Church-Turing thesis is the invention of the computer. Lovelace and Hopper are notable for paradigm shifts (as much as I hate the term) in what computers "are". Lovelace invented computers because the essence of the computer is the ability to perform computations, not just calculations: Lovelace published the first algorithm (Babbage obviously had to have written a few to design an analytical engine) and was the first person imagine computers as more than just a flexible calculator. In particular, she was the first to use a variable to represent anything beyond the intermediate/final step of a calculation: she was computing the 7th term of a series, so she used series/loop indices. Hopper invented computers because a general-purpose computer is a computation machine with a human-friendly interface. A "smart" lightbulb that runs embedded linux isn't a "computer" (until modified). Grace Hopper conceived of abstract programming in human-aligned languages, and invented A-0, the first "compiler" (her term; now we'd call it a linker). Before Hopper, computers were only ever programmed directly in machine code; every step of a computer program was a specific operation. Before A-0, we just had computation machines, but no human-centered interface. After A-0, we had computers. Zuse would be a perfectly excellent 5th name, as would Church, Godel, Herbrand, Bohm, and many others.
  - jhall1468 7y ago
    Turing is the easiest because he's the only one that makes any sense. You have to get incredibly philosophical to have Hopper or Lovelace on the list as they very obviously did not invented the computer.
    - ZeikJT 7y ago
      I implore you to read about the origins of the word computer and who those people were and what they did. Also just in general about the Analytical Engine, Babbage, and Lovelace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(job_description) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(job_description) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#First_computing_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#First_computing_devic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program#Analytical_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program#Analytical_En...

segfaultbuserr 7y ago

> I've heard people answer "Grace Hopper", "Ada Lovelace", "Charles Babbage", "Alan Turing", etc. to the same question about the origin of computers. You forgot Gottfried W. Leibniz. Another question is its historical impacts: did it have any influence on its further development? A good account of history should document and analyze them from different perspectives. You can have the credit of being the "first" even it doesn't have much influence, and you can have the credit of being influential even it doesn't have much publicity. And often the story is not black-and-white. For example, we can say Charles Babbage's Analytical Engine was never completed and conclude that it has no influence on its further design. But we you know that the story of Charles Babbage helped Howard Aiken at IBM selling his machine? (Harvard Mark I).

emmelaich 7y ago
I thought of Leibniz too. > "In Leibniz's mind, “this language will be the greatest instrument of reason,” for “when there are disputes among persons, we can simply say: Let us calculate, without further ado, and see who is right”"

mehrdadn 7y ago

3 of those 4 just seem... plain wrong? The first design of a general-purpose computer was obviously Babbage's. Wikipedia says work on it started in 1833, after the difference engine (already completed by 1822). He even developed two dozen programs for it between 1837-1840. He just ran into funding issues for his projects. Now if for some reason you feel an urge to hold an external issue like the lack of funding against him when giving credit, then you'd give credit to Konrad Zuse's Z3 (1941) for the first completed implementation. The fact that most computer scientists haven't even heard his name is evidence enough in my eyes that that's a thin rope to hang onto, but whatever. Beyond that, I find mention of those 3 other people just bizarre. If the person who actually produced the first design for a computer started its implementation doesn't get the credit, and the person who finally built the first one doesn't get the credit either... then are you sure your credit criteria are actually reasonable?!

_carl_jung 7y ago
I suppose most of the people I have heard these names from are not in the same league as you. I appreciate this summary though thanks. I also regret my sarcasm, sorry.
pflats 7y ago
I don't think they're particularly hard arguments to make. Turing is the easiest: What is a computer? What isn't a computer? If you can't answer that question, you don't have a computer. The Church-Turing thesis is the invention of the computer. Lovelace and Hopper are notable for paradigm shifts (as much as I hate the term) in what computers "are". Lovelace invented computers because the essence of the computer is the ability to perform computations, not just calculations: Lovelace published the first algorithm (Babbage obviously had to have written a few to design an analytical engine) and was the first person imagine computers as more than just a flexible calculator. In particular, she was the first to use a variable to represent anything beyond the intermediate/final step of a calculation: she was computing the 7th term of a series, so she used series/loop indices. Hopper invented computers because a general-purpose computer is a computation machine with a human-friendly interface. A "smart" lightbulb that runs embedded linux isn't a "computer" (until modified). Grace Hopper conceived of abstract programming in human-aligned languages, and invented A-0, the first "compiler" (her term; now we'd call it a linker). Before Hopper, computers were only ever programmed directly in machine code; every step of a computer program was a specific operation. Before A-0, we just had computation machines, but no human-centered interface. After A-0, we had computers. Zuse would be a perfectly excellent 5th name, as would Church, Godel, Herbrand, Bohm, and many others.
- jhall1468 7y ago
  Turing is the easiest because he's the only one that makes any sense. You have to get incredibly philosophical to have Hopper or Lovelace on the list as they very obviously did not invented the computer.
  - ZeikJT 7y ago
    I implore you to read about the origins of the word computer and who those people were and what they did. Also just in general about the Analytical Engine, Babbage, and Lovelace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(job_description) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(job_description) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#First_computing_device https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#First_computing_devic... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program#Analytical_Engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program#Analytical_En...