4 ms·
Whenever the von Neumann EDVAC paper is mentioned, I feel it is rightful to point people to the book that gives proper backround to what we incorrectly call von
by drno123 6y ago
Whenever the von Neumann EDVAC paper is mentioned, I feel it is rightful to point people to the book that gives proper backround to what we incorrectly call von Neumann architecture:
https://www.amazon.com/Eniac-Triumphs-Tragedies-Worlds-Computer/dp/0802713483 https://www.amazon.com/Eniac-Triumphs-Tragedies-Worlds-Compu...
- rosstex 6y agoI'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as 'von Neumann architecture'...
- oofoe 6y agoAlso, if you're interested in that sort of thing, the book "From Dits to Bits" by Herman Lukoff is a good read from an engineer in the trenches. Seems that it's now available on the Internet Archive: https://openlibrary.org/books/OL4436586M/From_dits_to_bits https://openlibrary.org/books/OL4436586M/From_dits_to_bits
- schmudde 6y agoThat's a fair point. I added this footnote to the piece in the same spirit: > The report helped popularize the term “Von Neumann architecture” as a way to denote computers that store programs in memory. The term and the original paper are both controversial because they both fail to acknowledge Von Neumann’s peers and predecessors. Although this seems to be an accident of history, the influence of Von Neumann’s first draft is undeniable. Sound good?