3 ms·

I'm not saying anyone could've done what she did. I don't know why you're putting those words in my mouth. I'm also not saying her contribution wasn't good - i

by DC-3 5y ago

I'm not saying anyone could've done what she did. I don't know why you're putting those words in my mouth. I'm also not saying her contribution wasn't good - it was, though I believe it to be relatively minor (then again, she died tragically young - she could well have gone on to accomplish a great deal more). What I'm saying is that it wasn't particularly influential, which I believe to be the case. That is, it largely came to be appreciated after it had been superseded, and therefore is known for its historical value rather than for being scientifically or technologically formative. This is important because the OP was trying to trace a lineage from the work of Goethe to the underpinnings of Computer Science. As for the comment that upsets you, I would ask - do you disagree that Lovelace's life and work has been used as a football by people with a point to prove for decades? It's not to discredit her that I say she would likely otherwise be obscure. Lots of intelligent, novel thinkers are obscure. But rightly or wrongly the nature of her person has come to be more significant than the specifics of her work.

rectang 5y ago
> That is, it largely came to be appreciated after it had been superseded, You don't "supersede" the idea of applying computation to purposes beyond number crunching. > As for the comment that upsets you, I would ask - do you disagree that Lovelace's life and work has been used as a football by people with a point to prove for decades? It was picked out of the clear blue sky in the comment I replied to, if we're looking for such things.
earthboundkid 5y ago
Because your whole criticism obviously applies to Babbage as well, who was a failure and had no influence on the creation of electronic computers in the 1940s. Why did this obvious criticism escape comment?
- DC-3 5y ago
  Babbage's contribution was substantially larger and more impressive than Lovelace's in my opinion. But you're right, it was essentially a technical cul-de-sac. For what it's worth, I think - in spite of his genius - Babbage can also be said to occupy an inflated position in the public consciousness, but for reasons of national pride rather than gender politics. My impression from German language sources on the history of computation is that Konrad Zuse is talked about rather more, and Babbage rather less.

by DC-3 5y ago

rectang 5y ago

> That is, it largely came to be appreciated after it had been superseded, You don't "supersede" the idea of applying computation to purposes beyond number crunching. > As for the comment that upsets you, I would ask - do you disagree that Lovelace's life and work has been used as a football by people with a point to prove for decades? It was picked out of the clear blue sky in the comment I replied to, if we're looking for such things.

earthboundkid 5y ago

Because your whole criticism obviously applies to Babbage as well, who was a failure and had no influence on the creation of electronic computers in the 1940s. Why did this obvious criticism escape comment?

DC-3 5y ago
Babbage's contribution was substantially larger and more impressive than Lovelace's in my opinion. But you're right, it was essentially a technical cul-de-sac. For what it's worth, I think - in spite of his genius - Babbage can also be said to occupy an inflated position in the public consciousness, but for reasons of national pride rather than gender politics. My impression from German language sources on the history of computation is that Konrad Zuse is talked about rather more, and Babbage rather less.