4 ms·
If the librarian's 'call for' meaning was indeed the one originally intended, then even in Mauchly's 1947 article you can already see slippage towards the more
by leoc 1y ago
If the librarian's 'call for' meaning was indeed the one originally intended, then even in Mauchly's 1947 article you can already see slippage towards the more object-oriented or actor-oriented 'call to' meaning.
- kgwgk 1y agoThat’s a big “if” when the only support for that theory seems to appear a decade later than the “call in” meaning.
- leoc 1y agoTo be honest I'm not sure what you're saying here, or what you think I'm saying.
- kgwgk 1y agoYou wrote "If the librarian's 'call for' meaning was indeed the one originally intended" I doubt that "the librarian's 'call for' meaning was indeed the one originally intended" (not that you say it!). Or maybe there is no difference between what you mean by "call for" and what the first quote meant by "call in". The subroutine is called / retrieved - and control is transferred to that subroutine. (I wouldn't say that when doctors are called to see a patient, for example, they are called in the librarian's meaning.)