3 ms·

Ancient civilizations observed astronomical bodies, often the Sun and Moon, to determine time. In a very real sense, the Sun and Moon are together a computer th

Ancient civilizations observed astronomical bodies, often the Sun and Moon, to determine time. In a very real sense, the Sun and Moon are together a computer that one uses to calculate, or compute, what time it is. Sundials are analog computers, no telling when they first appeared, but at least as early as 1500BC in Egypt. The abacus is a computation tool that was developed as early as 2700BC in Sumer. Its development required CS, and it is used to calculate, or to compute. The rules of grammar of Sanskrit were formulated ~500BC, highly systematized and technical, using metarules, transformations and recursions, iow, the work itself is computer science. The Antikythera mechanism is an analog computer designed to calculate astronomical positions and created from anywhere between 205BC to 87BC, and without computer science (and a number of other disciplines) it could not have been made. 1000 years later Medieval Muslim astronomers created analog computers, such as the torquetum, which converted measurements in three sets of coordinates: Horizon, equatorial, and ecliptic. Developing this would have required computer science. There is also the astrolab. When John Napier discovered logarithms for computational purposes in the early 17th century it opened a period of considerable progress by inventors and scientists in making calculating tools, and doing good computer science as they went. No, I'm afraid most of the computer science that has ever been performed occurred prior to the 19th Century.

monocasa 5y ago
Just like computer science is greater than programming computers, programming computers is greater than computer science. Neither is a complete subset of the other. It's sort of how like geometry (literally 'the measure of land', originally an applied mathematical field used for surveying) is newer than literally drawing property boundaries. It was the formalization and abstraction that led to computer science as a true mathematical field, which happened after actual programming occurred. We can reproject CS concepts on these earlier programs looking back, but the field of CS is newer than they are.
- Maursault 5y ago
  I have a lot of respect for coders. I also massively appreciate their humor. I don't think there is such a relation between a computer scientist and a programmer where one is greater or better than the other; they are merely different professions. I expect a programmer that has worked using Java, ObjC and C++ for, say, a decade, will have a better grasp of programming those languages than a CS grad 10 years after graduation, even if they learned those languages and used them, they probably weren't only programming, but also what appears to the untrained eye as sitting around like a lump. Often that's what contemplation looks like. A programmer codes a lot, so they'll be better at it. It has been pointed out to me before that mostly what computer scientists do is reckon. This is why I am onboard with renaming Computer Science to Reckoning Science. It is a subtle thing, but I think it would prevent countless students from wasting the best years of their lives due to incorrect expectations initiated by the confusing name of the discipline. It really is important to understand that the "computer" in Computer Science is not a digital machine, a mainframe, server, a Dell, an Acer, or a Mac, instead it is a living breathing person. I have to envy the Math majors and Math grads. They knew exactly what they were getting into, not a one of them ever asked, "what do you mean, 'it's all math,' ?"
  - monocasa 5y ago
    By greater, I didn't mean in softer, moral terms, but instead that the sets of problems and cognitive tools for approaching problems for both has some overlap, but one isn't a pure subset of the other. Trying (but failing apparently) to drive home my point that CS wasn't a prerequisite for programming for human civilization, therefore historical examples of programming are ultimately orthogonal to how old of a field CS itself is.
    - Maursault 5y ago
      Well, ok, and I misread your post, thank you for clarification. But you've employed a straw man, because no one has claimed anything about historical examples of programming to make claims about how old computer science is. What I did instead (in the GGGGP comment?) was give ancient examples of computer science to show how old it must be, at a minimum. Now, of course, there was no CS department in a university 5000 years ago. Nevertheless, computer science was performed in ancient Sumer, and we know this because we found their abacuses.

monocasa 5y ago

Just like computer science is greater than programming computers, programming computers is greater than computer science. Neither is a complete subset of the other. It's sort of how like geometry (literally 'the measure of land', originally an applied mathematical field used for surveying) is newer than literally drawing property boundaries. It was the formalization and abstraction that led to computer science as a true mathematical field, which happened after actual programming occurred. We can reproject CS concepts on these earlier programs looking back, but the field of CS is newer than they are.

Maursault 5y ago
I have a lot of respect for coders. I also massively appreciate their humor. I don't think there is such a relation between a computer scientist and a programmer where one is greater or better than the other; they are merely different professions. I expect a programmer that has worked using Java, ObjC and C++ for, say, a decade, will have a better grasp of programming those languages than a CS grad 10 years after graduation, even if they learned those languages and used them, they probably weren't only programming, but also what appears to the untrained eye as sitting around like a lump. Often that's what contemplation looks like. A programmer codes a lot, so they'll be better at it. It has been pointed out to me before that mostly what computer scientists do is reckon. This is why I am onboard with renaming Computer Science to Reckoning Science. It is a subtle thing, but I think it would prevent countless students from wasting the best years of their lives due to incorrect expectations initiated by the confusing name of the discipline. It really is important to understand that the "computer" in Computer Science is not a digital machine, a mainframe, server, a Dell, an Acer, or a Mac, instead it is a living breathing person. I have to envy the Math majors and Math grads. They knew exactly what they were getting into, not a one of them ever asked, "what do you mean, 'it's all math,' ?"
- monocasa 5y ago
  By greater, I didn't mean in softer, moral terms, but instead that the sets of problems and cognitive tools for approaching problems for both has some overlap, but one isn't a pure subset of the other. Trying (but failing apparently) to drive home my point that CS wasn't a prerequisite for programming for human civilization, therefore historical examples of programming are ultimately orthogonal to how old of a field CS itself is.
  - Maursault 5y ago
    Well, ok, and I misread your post, thank you for clarification. But you've employed a straw man, because no one has claimed anything about historical examples of programming to make claims about how old computer science is. What I did instead (in the GGGGP comment?) was give ancient examples of computer science to show how old it must be, at a minimum. Now, of course, there was no CS department in a university 5000 years ago. Nevertheless, computer science was performed in ancient Sumer, and we know this because we found their abacuses.