29 ms·

Eventually, I think, there will cease to be icons within the industry. What we have now are the people who invented the internet/computers and the basic compone

Eventually, I think, there will cease to be icons within the industry. What we have now are the people who invented the internet/computers and the basic components. The people who are doing the inventing now are just as smart, but they aren't creating fundamental things, they are improving on an existing system. We don't say, "engineer team y invented the iCore series of processors." we sort of just say "Intel is coming out with a new set of processors." I'm not sure if I am making my point very clear. :\

qq66 15y ago
I think the distinction you're highlighting is between the people who start the giant companies of the industry, and the people who keep those companies successful. Everyone knows that Noyce/Moore/Grove built Intel, not many people knows who runs it today. The '50s computing leaders (mostly academics) are in their old age, the '70s leaders (academics and businessmen) are heading into retirement (except for Jobs unfortunately), and the later leaders (Google, Facebook) are still going strong.
redthrowaway 15y ago
Between Gates, Zuckerberg, Larry and Sergey, Torvalds, RMS, Knuth, and a few others, there're still plenty of icons left and so I don't forsee your scenario happening anytime soon. I am generally an optimist, and think the number of icons to come is far greater than those who have come and gone.
- jc4p 15y ago
  If any of those people die before October ends I'm blaming you directly.
- jrockway 15y ago
  Is it really fair to compare Zuckerberg to Knuth? Zuckerberg made a PHP site for people to stalk their classmates. Knuth wrote TeX, hundreds of papers, and a series of books considered among the 100 most important scientific works of the 20th century. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/100-or-so-books-that-shaped-a-century-of-science http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/100-or-so-boo... Zuckerberg is definitely a successful dude that one can look up to. But in terms of advancing the field of computing, he hasn't done a whole lot yet.
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    > in terms of advancing the field of computing, he hasn't done a whole lot yet. Theory, no. Practice, oh Hell yes. Facebook changed the game, for everyone. The "Social Revolution" has changed the face of business, investing, interpersonal communication, friendships, revolutions... the list goes on. Maybe Zuck was just in the right place at the right time, but he made the most of it and his company's impact has been enormous.
  - rayiner 15y ago
    Your comment presupposes that advances in mathematics are more important than advances in social communication. Is Mozart less iconic because his achievements were in music?
    - icandoitbetter 15y ago
      Not sure why you're being downvoted. Somehow people have this picture of mathematics as this universal body of knowledge, but that couldn't be further from the truth. They are as earthly as anything else we've been doing as a human race. For an interesting perspective on mathematics from a cognitive-scientific point of view, check out George Lakoff's book "Where Mathematics Comes From."
      - 0x12 15y ago
        > Gates, Zuckerberg, Larry and Sergey, Torvalds, RMS, Knuth It's not too hard to imagine a world without facebook, but I'd find it very hard indeed to imagine a world without Microsoft, Google, Linux, Open Source or the Art of Computer Programming. It's almost like this is one of those trick questions: "which name does not belong in this list". Zuckerberg pops out at me immediately. All the rest is timeless, Facebook will one day be gone again, I'm fairly sure of that.
        crpatino 15y ago
        I have to disagree on this one. If there is one who does not belong in the list, it would be Knuth. Zuckerberg, as well as Gates, Larry and Sergey, has created a technology company that changed the lives of millions. They are all well known by the "civilians". Torvalds less so, but still, the Linux project has had a relevance that trascends beyond mere technology. Mr. Knuth's contributions, on the other hand, are much more fundamental. But, because of this, his name remains unknown for the general population. For us, he is a titan amongst men; for the world, he'd be an old, retired professor who cannot even figure out email.
- wisty 15y ago
  I hate to sound negative, but things won't get better. OK, this month has been a shocker, but next year might be just as bad. The real fundamentals of computing happened a long time ago. Hero of Alexandria, some Chinese and Islamic scholars, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Charles Babbage, Ada Lovelace, Joseph Marie Jacquard, Turing, non Neumann. But progress was linear, not exponential - the tools they made were so impractical that they didn't make further tools easier. You used a computer as a curiosity, or to solve a specific problem, not to build a better computer. Then the singularity hit. Computers got faster, IO got richer, and you could practically write computer programs that would help you write computer programs. It's hard to say exactly when that happened, but the inventions of C, UNIX, and Lisp were certainly part of that critical period in history. This shift started around the mid-1960s to early 70s. The people who were working on it are now in their 60s and 70s. The next generation (who are in their 50s and 60s) wasn't just inspired by them, they were given very useful tools, which made later advancements easier. It's easier to write a C++ compiler if you already have a C compiler. It's easier to write git if you have a CVS repo to store your work in. People no longer had to bootstrap using nothing but assembly, they started with a sound foundation, and could iterate. Because of the work of these founders, I think there's a lot more icons left.
  - bad_user 15y ago
    It's easier to write git if you have a CVS repo to store your work in Not to diminish your point or anything, but regarding Git, I'll just quote Linus Tolvards: For the first 10 years of kernel maintenance, we literally used tarballs and patches, which is a much superior source control management system than CVS is Basically Git started as a bunch of scripts written by Linux for dealing with "tarballs and patches" and nobody starts something like this unless there's lots of hatred involved. What you get if you're a CVS user and want something better is SVN. You get Git when you consider CVS such an abomination that you'd rather do without any existing VCS altogether. And I really think the world needs more people like Linus, as some wheels are worth reinventing. The real fundamentals of computing happened a long time ago. In the words of Alan Kay: The computer revolution hasn't happened yet ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521 (listen to this talk because it's great).
protagonist_h 15y ago
Fundamental inventions and discoveries are never recognized right away. That's why Nobel prizes are usually awarded for a work done several decades ago. The guys who do revolutionary work in computing right now do exist, we just haven't recognized them yet.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
I disagree, here's why: First, the software engineering field is still very immature. The tools and terminology in use are still very primitive. Studies seeking to identify best practices via evidence are still few and far between. Worse yet, known best practices with substantial evidence behind them are widely ignored in the industry on average. I believe there is still a lot of room for new techniques, and new models of software engineering, which will serve to guide developers for generations. Second, we are at a critical juncture in programming languages. There are a lot of new languages gaining popularity, and a lot of older languages seeing substantial change. The fundamental paradigms in use by the average programmer are changing (becoming increasingly more functional, generally). Meanwhile, there are even more advanced concepts on the horizon (monads, for example) which are still not accessible to most programmers. There's a huge opportunity there for the next generation of languages to increase the accessibility of those advanced techniques. Additionally, we're in the midst of a revolution in terms of compiler technology. We are seeing things like modular compilers, very advanced run-times capable of incredible speed improvements, cutting edge garbage collectors, and the potential for massive parallelization on the desktop. Again, there's a huge potential there for some very fundamental innovations. Third, we are no where near the end of the line in computing hardware. Over the next few decades we could see some very crazy things. 3D micro-chips putting trillions of transistors into every cpu. Even more massive parallelization than what we've seen today. RSFQ processors that could put petaflops computing power on a single chip. MRAM married to processor cores leading to breakthroughs in performance. Non-Von Neumann architectures enabled by memory and processing power being mixed together. FPGAs with billions of gates with the capability to operate and reconfigure at multi-gigahertz speed. Asynchronous CPUs. And these are just things at a very fundamental level. There's still a huge potential for lots of innovations in the software and hardware space closer to the end-user. There's plenty of room for more icons in the future.
alf 15y ago
People have been about the same intelligence for a long time. Steve, Dennis, and John were no smarter than their predecessors, they were just applying their intelligence in an area other smart people weren't looking at. Woz was designing calculators before he designed the Apple II. So what's the next area a smart person can make a big difference in?

qq66 15y ago

I think the distinction you're highlighting is between the people who start the giant companies of the industry, and the people who keep those companies successful. Everyone knows that Noyce/Moore/Grove built Intel, not many people knows who runs it today. The '50s computing leaders (mostly academics) are in their old age, the '70s leaders (academics and businessmen) are heading into retirement (except for Jobs unfortunately), and the later leaders (Google, Facebook) are still going strong.

redthrowaway 15y ago

Between Gates, Zuckerberg, Larry and Sergey, Torvalds, RMS, Knuth, and a few others, there're still plenty of icons left and so I don't forsee your scenario happening anytime soon. I am generally an optimist, and think the number of icons to come is far greater than those who have come and gone.

jc4p 15y ago
If any of those people die before October ends I'm blaming you directly.
jrockway 15y ago
Is it really fair to compare Zuckerberg to Knuth? Zuckerberg made a PHP site for people to stalk their classmates. Knuth wrote TeX, hundreds of papers, and a series of books considered among the 100 most important scientific works of the 20th century. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/100-or-so-books-that-shaped-a-century-of-science http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/100-or-so-boo... Zuckerberg is definitely a successful dude that one can look up to. But in terms of advancing the field of computing, he hasn't done a whole lot yet.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  > in terms of advancing the field of computing, he hasn't done a whole lot yet. Theory, no. Practice, oh Hell yes. Facebook changed the game, for everyone. The "Social Revolution" has changed the face of business, investing, interpersonal communication, friendships, revolutions... the list goes on. Maybe Zuck was just in the right place at the right time, but he made the most of it and his company's impact has been enormous.
- rayiner 15y ago
  Your comment presupposes that advances in mathematics are more important than advances in social communication. Is Mozart less iconic because his achievements were in music?
  - icandoitbetter 15y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted. Somehow people have this picture of mathematics as this universal body of knowledge, but that couldn't be further from the truth. They are as earthly as anything else we've been doing as a human race. For an interesting perspective on mathematics from a cognitive-scientific point of view, check out George Lakoff's book "Where Mathematics Comes From."
    - 0x12 15y ago
      > Gates, Zuckerberg, Larry and Sergey, Torvalds, RMS, Knuth It's not too hard to imagine a world without facebook, but I'd find it very hard indeed to imagine a world without Microsoft, Google, Linux, Open Source or the Art of Computer Programming. It's almost like this is one of those trick questions: "which name does not belong in this list". Zuckerberg pops out at me immediately. All the rest is timeless, Facebook will one day be gone again, I'm fairly sure of that.
      - crpatino 15y ago
        I have to disagree on this one. If there is one who does not belong in the list, it would be Knuth. Zuckerberg, as well as Gates, Larry and Sergey, has created a technology company that changed the lives of millions. They are all well known by the "civilians". Torvalds less so, but still, the Linux project has had a relevance that trascends beyond mere technology. Mr. Knuth's contributions, on the other hand, are much more fundamental. But, because of this, his name remains unknown for the general population. For us, he is a titan amongst men; for the world, he'd be an old, retired professor who cannot even figure out email.
wisty 15y ago
I hate to sound negative, but things won't get better. OK, this month has been a shocker, but next year might be just as bad. The real fundamentals of computing happened a long time ago. Hero of Alexandria, some Chinese and Islamic scholars, Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, Charles Babbage, Ada Lovelace, Joseph Marie Jacquard, Turing, non Neumann. But progress was linear, not exponential - the tools they made were so impractical that they didn't make further tools easier. You used a computer as a curiosity, or to solve a specific problem, not to build a better computer. Then the singularity hit. Computers got faster, IO got richer, and you could practically write computer programs that would help you write computer programs. It's hard to say exactly when that happened, but the inventions of C, UNIX, and Lisp were certainly part of that critical period in history. This shift started around the mid-1960s to early 70s. The people who were working on it are now in their 60s and 70s. The next generation (who are in their 50s and 60s) wasn't just inspired by them, they were given very useful tools, which made later advancements easier. It's easier to write a C++ compiler if you already have a C compiler. It's easier to write git if you have a CVS repo to store your work in. People no longer had to bootstrap using nothing but assembly, they started with a sound foundation, and could iterate. Because of the work of these founders, I think there's a lot more icons left.
- bad_user 15y ago
  It's easier to write git if you have a CVS repo to store your work in Not to diminish your point or anything, but regarding Git, I'll just quote Linus Tolvards: For the first 10 years of kernel maintenance, we literally used tarballs and patches, which is a much superior source control management system than CVS is Basically Git started as a bunch of scripts written by Linux for dealing with "tarballs and patches" and nobody starts something like this unless there's lots of hatred involved. What you get if you're a CVS user and want something better is SVN. You get Git when you consider CVS such an abomination that you'd rather do without any existing VCS altogether. And I really think the world needs more people like Linus, as some wheels are worth reinventing. The real fundamentals of computing happened a long time ago. In the words of Alan Kay: The computer revolution hasn't happened yet ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2950949730059754521 (listen to this talk because it's great).

protagonist_h 15y ago

Fundamental inventions and discoveries are never recognized right away. That's why Nobel prizes are usually awarded for a work done several decades ago. The guys who do revolutionary work in computing right now do exist, we just haven't recognized them yet.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

I disagree, here's why: First, the software engineering field is still very immature. The tools and terminology in use are still very primitive. Studies seeking to identify best practices via evidence are still few and far between. Worse yet, known best practices with substantial evidence behind them are widely ignored in the industry on average. I believe there is still a lot of room for new techniques, and new models of software engineering, which will serve to guide developers for generations. Second, we are at a critical juncture in programming languages. There are a lot of new languages gaining popularity, and a lot of older languages seeing substantial change. The fundamental paradigms in use by the average programmer are changing (becoming increasingly more functional, generally). Meanwhile, there are even more advanced concepts on the horizon (monads, for example) which are still not accessible to most programmers. There's a huge opportunity there for the next generation of languages to increase the accessibility of those advanced techniques. Additionally, we're in the midst of a revolution in terms of compiler technology. We are seeing things like modular compilers, very advanced run-times capable of incredible speed improvements, cutting edge garbage collectors, and the potential for massive parallelization on the desktop. Again, there's a huge potential there for some very fundamental innovations. Third, we are no where near the end of the line in computing hardware. Over the next few decades we could see some very crazy things. 3D micro-chips putting trillions of transistors into every cpu. Even more massive parallelization than what we've seen today. RSFQ processors that could put petaflops computing power on a single chip. MRAM married to processor cores leading to breakthroughs in performance. Non-Von Neumann architectures enabled by memory and processing power being mixed together. FPGAs with billions of gates with the capability to operate and reconfigure at multi-gigahertz speed. Asynchronous CPUs. And these are just things at a very fundamental level. There's still a huge potential for lots of innovations in the software and hardware space closer to the end-user. There's plenty of room for more icons in the future.

alf 15y ago

People have been about the same intelligence for a long time. Steve, Dennis, and John were no smarter than their predecessors, they were just applying their intelligence in an area other smart people weren't looking at. Woz was designing calculators before he designed the Apple II. So what's the next area a smart person can make a big difference in?