5 ms·

Lived it. I remember taking my first course on databases, in 1977, and feeling like I was hopelessly and permanently behind because it had been seven years sinc

Lived it. I remember taking my first course on databases, in 1977, and feeling like I was hopelessly and permanently behind because it had been seven years since Codd's paper. I taught an intro database course recently, and only touched on some of that history. It wasn't the main point, and it was an undergrad course. But you point out a real problem. There is so much reinvention by people who simply don't know what was done previously. * I have seen research I did in the 70s/80s get redone in the last 20 years, with no awareness that the problem had already been solved. * I saw a horrifying takedown at an academic conference, (late 80s?) Someone on the original System R research team was pretty furious at a young researcher for being completely oblivious to the fact that he had repeated some System R work. (He blamed the conference reviewers as much as the author.)

spockz 5y ago
My late professor used to lament quite a lot about work being redone. Not a week went by without one or two papers/submissions/talks/works being mentioned with an immediate followup like “this is the same as this paper from the 70/80/90” or “this is the same as this paper by that author”. I found it quite sad, both because of the apparent double work and because this whole catalogue of computer science material went unused because of the tirades instead of their being a constructive way to share it. Although I very well can imagine the frustration, as I have seen the same things with libraries being reinvented, I think there is value in revisiting some problems in a different context. Maybe the problems are just not that of a big deal anymore in newer languages/eco systems even though they are fundamentally the same problem as in the 70s.
- geophile 5y ago
  Of course there is value in revisiting a problem. But you should know that you're doing it, and be able to say how your work relates to the earlier work. (Not denying that reimplementing things can be fun ...)
  - leetrout 5y ago
    I think some of it is pure exposure. Developing a new interest in a topic can be inspirational to build things and without adequate access to prior art or knowing the right search terms can leave you lost and ignorant.
- fragmede 5y ago
  https://wiki.c2.com/?ShouldersOfGiants https://wiki.c2.com/?ShouldersOfGiants Databases are interesting because they were the forefront of computing when it was invented, and they still are today. The computer science sorting algorithms and trees (and trie) go directly to how good (for all the different kinds of definitions of good) a database is. MongoDB threw out a ton of history in order to invent a different wheel, and it's faster for interesting reasons, but it's also for a different era than single monolith computing (aka Oracle DB). That doesn't mean MongoDB is appropriate for all situations, but that a fundamental precept of computing has changed. Used to be, there was room for maybe five computers in the whole world. Today, my computer has multiple virtual computers inside of it and they are treated as cattle, not pets. The work being redone is because (sometimes) the work has been invalidated by newer experiments. We're going to have to "redo" a lot work once dark matter is found as well.
  - jd_mongodb 5y ago
    MongoDB is a classic example of the innovator's dilemma. In its first incarnation it had no ACID transactions, no joins, no Geo-Spatial indexes, no inverted indexes, no SQL query language etc. What it did have (which no relational database had at the time) was JSON as a coin of the realm and a distributed database model. Run the clock forward and MongoDB now competes on equal footing with relational databases for all those features but it still has the key competitive advantages of JSON as a native format and a distributed architecture.
- lillecarl 5y ago
  I wonder if this is where technological evolution will stagnate, when most people research an already solved and proven topic and nothing new happens, I saw some science YouTuber say development is still accelerating, wonder for how long until the next breakthrough!
- kitd 5y ago
  You would think the CS discipline, of all disciplines, would be able to expose its history in an easily searchable format.
  - Jugurtha 5y ago
    Ironically, if there were a database that would allow querying for this type of things... What's the State of the Art on X ? Where are we on Y ? Has the problem in paper Z been solved ?
  - lazide 5y ago
    Cobblers children tend to go without shoes maybe? I suspect some of it is just the joy of solving (or trying to solve the problem) means the unsexy work of digging through hundreds or thousands of old papers gets forgotten. And looking at things with a fresh view (which isn’t going to happen after looking at all those old papers) does have value.
    - gnufx 5y ago
      I find the freshest view is typically in the foundational papers (not necessarily in computer science, but generally). Always go back and look.
    - Jugurtha 5y ago
      Please allow me a snarky comment: Coddler's children.
  - gnufx 5y ago
    I think in a lot of cases, it's partly a question of where the material was (on paper, not necessarily in libraries, possibly at obscure conferences). That's the case for a various things I'd like to refer to, and the system I used for physics research was never written up anyway. In this context and example is information on Logica's RAPPORT, allegedly the first commercial, portable RDB, which had some significance in UK research support.
  - amw-zero 5y ago
    Such a format would not matter, because most programmers are anti-research, anti-math, and anti anything other than shipping Agile software.
nickdothutton 5y ago
I wrote a little on this subject, of research that is ignored or forgotten. You might find it of interest. https://blog.eutopian.io/the-next-big-thing-go-back-to-the-future./ https://blog.eutopian.io/the-next-big-thing-go-back-to-the-f...
TikiTDO 5y ago
I think this problem comes down to two core issues: discoverability and terminology. You're going to be lucky if a paper from the 70s or 80s is available in a searchable database at all. That means someone bothered to scan it in, and OCR it since then. Even for the few papers that are searchable, they are old enough that they probably won't catch anyone's eye unless they are desperate. Of course then there's also the problem of knowing what to search for. Programmers love to invent, reinvent, and re-reinvent terminology. It's only gotten worse with every other developer running a blog trying to explain complex ideas in simple terms. The entire field of ML is a perfect example of this. I remember talking to my father about all sorts of new developments in ML back in the early 2010s, and I was quite surprised when he told me that he learned a lot of the things I was talking about back in the 80s just named a bit differently. In most cases it ends up being a question of how much time you can put into any given problem. If I spend two weeks to find a paper that would have taken me a week to reinvent, then am I really ahead? If the knowledge wasn't important to enough make it into textbooks/classes/common knowledge then attempting to find it is akin to searching for a particular needle in a pile of needles.
- amw-zero 5y ago
  I have never come across a popular CS paper that was not available on the web, for what it’s worth. Maybe some of the lesser known papers are lost, but all of the important ones, such as Codd’s writing, are very easily accessible with simple search engine searches.
  - TikiTDO 5y ago
    The important and popular ones are absolutely available, but those are usually important because they have entered the realm of "common knowledge," at least in a particular sub-field. These are going to be at the top of the list when it comes to digitizing useful historic records. It's fairly easy to OCR a PDF, so as long as someone with some time decided "hey, this might be useful" then you'll probably be able to find it. If you're doing databases then you've almost certainly been exposed to Codd's work, if not through his papers and books, then at least through textbooks and lectures. There are countless blogs, lecture series, and presentations that will happily direct you there. The challenge is that there's also a mountain of work that never really got much popularity for whatever reason. Say a paper was ahead of it's time, or was released with bad timing, or simply kept the most interesting parts until the end where few people might have noticed. It's these sort of gems that are hard to find. It's hard to even know how many of these there are, because they are by definition not popular enough for most people to know about them.
Frost1x 5y ago
>But you point out a real problem. There is so much reinvention by people who simply don't know what was done previously. I've often wondered if and where the boundaries of human knowledge will run into this very problem. Mostly we rely on the concept of reductionism and hope that will generalize and scale but it rarely does. We often have different theories at different scales for different things we to want model and explain with science in general. If it's found that these ideas don't connect and we have to forever add more and more generalized nuggets of knowledge, models, etc for specific case, even if they are reductionist in nature, we may get to a point where there's just so much information the act of discovery of prior art may be more work than simply redoing the experiment against the ultimate judge (reality) and see if it flies. I used to work with a handful of bioinformaticists in the era of the affordable sequencing boom and there was a lot of debate about what to do with all the sequence data. Do they archive it and pay the cost to manage, index, and make it searchable or does it make more sense to simply pay the couple thousand to rerun the experiment and assure yourself that no process flaws were introduced in a prior paper, that you eventually agree with the prior work, and so on. There's almost a little bit of built in reproducibility in this unintended act of duplicating prior work. Software is especially bad because it's such a relatively new domain and is rarely done rigorously so people just run through cycles over and over again, assuming something people did before was wrong or that the environment changed and that approach was just inappropriate for it's time period. Plus, people in this industry seem to be driven to do innovative new work so they have no interest in looking backwards even if they should.

spockz 5y ago

My late professor used to lament quite a lot about work being redone. Not a week went by without one or two papers/submissions/talks/works being mentioned with an immediate followup like “this is the same as this paper from the 70/80/90” or “this is the same as this paper by that author”. I found it quite sad, both because of the apparent double work and because this whole catalogue of computer science material went unused because of the tirades instead of their being a constructive way to share it. Although I very well can imagine the frustration, as I have seen the same things with libraries being reinvented, I think there is value in revisiting some problems in a different context. Maybe the problems are just not that of a big deal anymore in newer languages/eco systems even though they are fundamentally the same problem as in the 70s.

geophile 5y ago
Of course there is value in revisiting a problem. But you should know that you're doing it, and be able to say how your work relates to the earlier work. (Not denying that reimplementing things can be fun ...)
- leetrout 5y ago
  I think some of it is pure exposure. Developing a new interest in a topic can be inspirational to build things and without adequate access to prior art or knowing the right search terms can leave you lost and ignorant.
fragmede 5y ago
https://wiki.c2.com/?ShouldersOfGiants https://wiki.c2.com/?ShouldersOfGiants Databases are interesting because they were the forefront of computing when it was invented, and they still are today. The computer science sorting algorithms and trees (and trie) go directly to how good (for all the different kinds of definitions of good) a database is. MongoDB threw out a ton of history in order to invent a different wheel, and it's faster for interesting reasons, but it's also for a different era than single monolith computing (aka Oracle DB). That doesn't mean MongoDB is appropriate for all situations, but that a fundamental precept of computing has changed. Used to be, there was room for maybe five computers in the whole world. Today, my computer has multiple virtual computers inside of it and they are treated as cattle, not pets. The work being redone is because (sometimes) the work has been invalidated by newer experiments. We're going to have to "redo" a lot work once dark matter is found as well.
- jd_mongodb 5y ago
  MongoDB is a classic example of the innovator's dilemma. In its first incarnation it had no ACID transactions, no joins, no Geo-Spatial indexes, no inverted indexes, no SQL query language etc. What it did have (which no relational database had at the time) was JSON as a coin of the realm and a distributed database model. Run the clock forward and MongoDB now competes on equal footing with relational databases for all those features but it still has the key competitive advantages of JSON as a native format and a distributed architecture.
lillecarl 5y ago
I wonder if this is where technological evolution will stagnate, when most people research an already solved and proven topic and nothing new happens, I saw some science YouTuber say development is still accelerating, wonder for how long until the next breakthrough!
kitd 5y ago
You would think the CS discipline, of all disciplines, would be able to expose its history in an easily searchable format.
- Jugurtha 5y ago
  Ironically, if there were a database that would allow querying for this type of things... What's the State of the Art on X ? Where are we on Y ? Has the problem in paper Z been solved ?
- lazide 5y ago
  Cobblers children tend to go without shoes maybe? I suspect some of it is just the joy of solving (or trying to solve the problem) means the unsexy work of digging through hundreds or thousands of old papers gets forgotten. And looking at things with a fresh view (which isn’t going to happen after looking at all those old papers) does have value.
  - gnufx 5y ago
    I find the freshest view is typically in the foundational papers (not necessarily in computer science, but generally). Always go back and look.
  - Jugurtha 5y ago
    Please allow me a snarky comment: Coddler's children.
- gnufx 5y ago
  I think in a lot of cases, it's partly a question of where the material was (on paper, not necessarily in libraries, possibly at obscure conferences). That's the case for a various things I'd like to refer to, and the system I used for physics research was never written up anyway. In this context and example is information on Logica's RAPPORT, allegedly the first commercial, portable RDB, which had some significance in UK research support.
- amw-zero 5y ago
  Such a format would not matter, because most programmers are anti-research, anti-math, and anti anything other than shipping Agile software.

nickdothutton 5y ago

I wrote a little on this subject, of research that is ignored or forgotten. You might find it of interest. https://blog.eutopian.io/the-next-big-thing-go-back-to-the-future./ https://blog.eutopian.io/the-next-big-thing-go-back-to-the-f...

TikiTDO 5y ago

I think this problem comes down to two core issues: discoverability and terminology. You're going to be lucky if a paper from the 70s or 80s is available in a searchable database at all. That means someone bothered to scan it in, and OCR it since then. Even for the few papers that are searchable, they are old enough that they probably won't catch anyone's eye unless they are desperate. Of course then there's also the problem of knowing what to search for. Programmers love to invent, reinvent, and re-reinvent terminology. It's only gotten worse with every other developer running a blog trying to explain complex ideas in simple terms. The entire field of ML is a perfect example of this. I remember talking to my father about all sorts of new developments in ML back in the early 2010s, and I was quite surprised when he told me that he learned a lot of the things I was talking about back in the 80s just named a bit differently. In most cases it ends up being a question of how much time you can put into any given problem. If I spend two weeks to find a paper that would have taken me a week to reinvent, then am I really ahead? If the knowledge wasn't important to enough make it into textbooks/classes/common knowledge then attempting to find it is akin to searching for a particular needle in a pile of needles.

amw-zero 5y ago
I have never come across a popular CS paper that was not available on the web, for what it’s worth. Maybe some of the lesser known papers are lost, but all of the important ones, such as Codd’s writing, are very easily accessible with simple search engine searches.
- TikiTDO 5y ago
  The important and popular ones are absolutely available, but those are usually important because they have entered the realm of "common knowledge," at least in a particular sub-field. These are going to be at the top of the list when it comes to digitizing useful historic records. It's fairly easy to OCR a PDF, so as long as someone with some time decided "hey, this might be useful" then you'll probably be able to find it. If you're doing databases then you've almost certainly been exposed to Codd's work, if not through his papers and books, then at least through textbooks and lectures. There are countless blogs, lecture series, and presentations that will happily direct you there. The challenge is that there's also a mountain of work that never really got much popularity for whatever reason. Say a paper was ahead of it's time, or was released with bad timing, or simply kept the most interesting parts until the end where few people might have noticed. It's these sort of gems that are hard to find. It's hard to even know how many of these there are, because they are by definition not popular enough for most people to know about them.

Frost1x 5y ago

>But you point out a real problem. There is so much reinvention by people who simply don't know what was done previously. I've often wondered if and where the boundaries of human knowledge will run into this very problem. Mostly we rely on the concept of reductionism and hope that will generalize and scale but it rarely does. We often have different theories at different scales for different things we to want model and explain with science in general. If it's found that these ideas don't connect and we have to forever add more and more generalized nuggets of knowledge, models, etc for specific case, even if they are reductionist in nature, we may get to a point where there's just so much information the act of discovery of prior art may be more work than simply redoing the experiment against the ultimate judge (reality) and see if it flies. I used to work with a handful of bioinformaticists in the era of the affordable sequencing boom and there was a lot of debate about what to do with all the sequence data. Do they archive it and pay the cost to manage, index, and make it searchable or does it make more sense to simply pay the couple thousand to rerun the experiment and assure yourself that no process flaws were introduced in a prior paper, that you eventually agree with the prior work, and so on. There's almost a little bit of built in reproducibility in this unintended act of duplicating prior work. Software is especially bad because it's such a relatively new domain and is rarely done rigorously so people just run through cycles over and over again, assuming something people did before was wrong or that the environment changed and that approach was just inappropriate for it's time period. Plus, people in this industry seem to be driven to do innovative new work so they have no interest in looking backwards even if they should.