5 ms·

The Most Important Software Innovations

13 points by davidjnelson 7y ago

ansgri 7y ago
In our university course on the Philosophy of Science we were taught the difference between innovation and invention, and it seems like the recent trend is to substitute one for the other. I find it to muddy the discussion a great deal. This paper actually describes inventions, i.e. totally novel ideas (at least not previously well-known, so reinvention). Innovation, on the other hand, requires introduction to novel ideas to market, the novelty being relative to what was available commercially. So in our high tech business we always talk about innovations, and it's totally normal for what we claim to be an innovation to be known in academic circles for decades: it's (relative) practicality that matters. In this sense, Babbage's Engine was totally not an innovation, yet an important invention.
- yesenadam 7y ago
  > the difference between innovation and invention That seems an odd thing to learn about in philosophy of science! Your use of the terms is new to me, and doesn't seem at all how the words are generally used. So, I don't buy your description of what the paper "actually" does. That's nice if the meanings you were taught help you think about things, but I don't think that makes your meanings right and other meanings confused or wrong. And why bring money into it? ("available commercially"). There's a part near the end of the webpage that I think bears on what you wrote: (the rest of my comment is a quote) It’s okay to not be innovative There’s nothing wrong with a technology or product not being innovative. Indeed, a technology or product should primarily be measured as whether or not it solves real world problems (without causing more problems than it solves). Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel, has stated that a pet peeve of his is that “there is a great deal of talk about ‘innovation’ and ‘vision.’ People want to hear about the one big idea that changes the world, but that’s not how the world works. It’s not about visionary ideas; it’s about lots of good ideas which do not seem world-changing at the time, but which turn out to be great after lots of sweat and work have been applied.” Instead, the Linux kernel (which has been wildly successful) is the result of lots of small ideas contributed by lots of people over a long time. The focus of this paper is innovation, not utility. Do not confuse innovation with utility.
  - ansgri 7y ago
    Okay, but then: what is the difference between innovation and invention, from your understanding of the common word usage?

13 points by davidjnelson 7y ago

In our university course on the Philosophy of Science we were taught the difference between innovation and invention, and it seems like the recent trend is to substitute one for the other. I find it to muddy the discussion a great deal. This paper actually describes inventions, i.e. totally novel ideas (at least not previously well-known, so reinvention). Innovation, on the other hand, requires introduction to novel ideas to market, the novelty being relative to what was available commercially. So in our high tech business we always talk about innovations, and it's totally normal for what we claim to be an innovation to be known in academic circles for decades: it's (relative) practicality that matters. In this sense, Babbage's Engine was totally not an innovation, yet an important invention.

yesenadam 7y ago
> the difference between innovation and invention That seems an odd thing to learn about in philosophy of science! Your use of the terms is new to me, and doesn't seem at all how the words are generally used. So, I don't buy your description of what the paper "actually" does. That's nice if the meanings you were taught help you think about things, but I don't think that makes your meanings right and other meanings confused or wrong. And why bring money into it? ("available commercially"). There's a part near the end of the webpage that I think bears on what you wrote: (the rest of my comment is a quote) It’s okay to not be innovative There’s nothing wrong with a technology or product not being innovative. Indeed, a technology or product should primarily be measured as whether or not it solves real world problems (without causing more problems than it solves). Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel, has stated that a pet peeve of his is that “there is a great deal of talk about ‘innovation’ and ‘vision.’ People want to hear about the one big idea that changes the world, but that’s not how the world works. It’s not about visionary ideas; it’s about lots of good ideas which do not seem world-changing at the time, but which turn out to be great after lots of sweat and work have been applied.” Instead, the Linux kernel (which has been wildly successful) is the result of lots of small ideas contributed by lots of people over a long time. The focus of this paper is innovation, not utility. Do not confuse innovation with utility.
- ansgri 7y ago
  Okay, but then: what is the difference between innovation and invention, from your understanding of the common word usage?