3 ms·

It seams like most things boil down to ideas from the 70's. The internet, distributed computing, AI, etc...

pjmlp 1y ago
Indeed, everything old is new again.
Rochus 1y ago
> most things boil down to ideas from the 70's Rather from the sixties. E.g. OOP including dynamic dispatch, late binding, GC etc. appeared 1967 with Simula.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  GC was a bit earlier. :)
  - Rochus 1y ago
    Earlier than the sixties? All elements of OOP were known before 1967, but their combination, which we still use today under the title OOP, appeared in Simula 67 for the first time. I think the first appearance of a GC in literature was in 1960.
    - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      Did Lisp have GC from the beginning? If so, that would be 1958.
      - Rochus 1y ago
        I think, the first mark‑and‑sweep collector was published in McCarthy's 1960 Communications of the ACM paper "Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine, Part I". It's resonable to assume, that they already had it when Steve Russell implemented the first Lisp evaluator, but we don't know exactly when it was added.
        kragen 1y ago
        No, that paper doesn't describe the garbage collector. I do think it is true that before it was published Slug Russell had implemented the GC, but I think it's correct that we don't have listings from that early. Edit: yes, yes it does describe the garbage collector.
        andsoitis 1y ago
        The concept of automatic memory management dates back to the 1950s. However, John McCarthy, the creator of Lisp, introduced the first widely recognized garbage collection mechanism around 1959/1960.
        kragen 1y ago
        If so, he didn't write about it in that paper, and I don't think he introduced it at all; I think Slug Russell did. Correction: as Rochus pointed out, he certainly did write about it in that paper, giving a complete description.
        Rochus 1y ago
        Isn't the "Free-Storage List" in section 4c, starting on page 26, a mark & sweep collector? They didn't use the term then, but I think it describes one. I'm not aware of any earlier publication.
        kragen 1y ago
        The paper only has 12 pages, but there is a section 4c with that title starting on page 192 of https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/367177.367199 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/367177.367199, and you are correct that it describes a mark-and-sweep collector. I was mistaken, and I appreciate the correction.
        Rochus 1y ago
        Ok, I see. Just downloaded the first hit from Google, which has 34 pages and is nicely printed: https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive.pdf https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive.pdf.
GuB-42 1y ago
Yes, but ideas are (mostly) worthless. I mean, they are necessary, but that's the easy part, building the technical foundation that make it possible is the hard part. The internet needs wires and routers, distributed computing need a good network (i.e. the internet), current-day AI needs GPUs and GPUs need silicon chips that defy the laws of physics. Really, looking at the EUV lithography process makes all of computer science feel insignifiant by comparison, everything about it is absurd. The real progress is that now, we can implement the ideas from the 70s, the good ones at least. I don't want to diminish the work of the founders of computer science, there is real genius here, but out of the billions of people on this planet, individual geniuses are not in short supply, but the real progress come from the millions of people that worked on the industrial complex, supply chains and trade that lead to modern GPUs, among everything that define modern computing.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  As for this measure, Software is worthless as well, which is basically fully specified ideas.
  - GuB-42 1y ago
    "Fully specified" is the important part here, and the work that went into making the idea fully specified is where the value lies. For this, we could look at intellectual property laws. Ideas are not protected. Neither by patents, nor copyright, nor trademark. If you want to make your idea worthy with regard to the law, you have to "fully specify" it, turning it into an invention (patent), or code (copyright).

Indeed, everything old is new again.

> most things boil down to ideas from the 70's Rather from the sixties. E.g. OOP including dynamic dispatch, late binding, GC etc. appeared 1967 with Simula.

pjmlp 1y ago
GC was a bit earlier. :)
- Rochus 1y ago
  Earlier than the sixties? All elements of OOP were known before 1967, but their combination, which we still use today under the title OOP, appeared in Simula 67 for the first time. I think the first appearance of a GC in literature was in 1960.
  - AnimalMuppet 1y ago
    Did Lisp have GC from the beginning? If so, that would be 1958.
    - Rochus 1y ago
      I think, the first mark‑and‑sweep collector was published in McCarthy's 1960 Communications of the ACM paper "Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine, Part I". It's resonable to assume, that they already had it when Steve Russell implemented the first Lisp evaluator, but we don't know exactly when it was added.
      - kragen 1y ago
        No, that paper doesn't describe the garbage collector. I do think it is true that before it was published Slug Russell had implemented the GC, but I think it's correct that we don't have listings from that early. Edit: yes, yes it does describe the garbage collector.
        andsoitis 1y ago
        The concept of automatic memory management dates back to the 1950s. However, John McCarthy, the creator of Lisp, introduced the first widely recognized garbage collection mechanism around 1959/1960.
        kragen 1y ago
        If so, he didn't write about it in that paper, and I don't think he introduced it at all; I think Slug Russell did. Correction: as Rochus pointed out, he certainly did write about it in that paper, giving a complete description.
        Rochus 1y ago
        Isn't the "Free-Storage List" in section 4c, starting on page 26, a mark & sweep collector? They didn't use the term then, but I think it describes one. I'm not aware of any earlier publication.
        kragen 1y ago
        The paper only has 12 pages, but there is a section 4c with that title starting on page 192 of https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/367177.367199 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/367177.367199, and you are correct that it describes a mark-and-sweep collector. I was mistaken, and I appreciate the correction.
        Rochus 1y ago
        Ok, I see. Just downloaded the first hit from Google, which has 34 pages and is nicely printed: https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive.pdf https://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive.pdf.

GuB-42 1y ago

Yes, but ideas are (mostly) worthless. I mean, they are necessary, but that's the easy part, building the technical foundation that make it possible is the hard part. The internet needs wires and routers, distributed computing need a good network (i.e. the internet), current-day AI needs GPUs and GPUs need silicon chips that defy the laws of physics. Really, looking at the EUV lithography process makes all of computer science feel insignifiant by comparison, everything about it is absurd. The real progress is that now, we can implement the ideas from the 70s, the good ones at least. I don't want to diminish the work of the founders of computer science, there is real genius here, but out of the billions of people on this planet, individual geniuses are not in short supply, but the real progress come from the millions of people that worked on the industrial complex, supply chains and trade that lead to modern GPUs, among everything that define modern computing.

1718627440 1y ago
As for this measure, Software is worthless as well, which is basically fully specified ideas.
- GuB-42 1y ago
  "Fully specified" is the important part here, and the work that went into making the idea fully specified is where the value lies. For this, we could look at intellectual property laws. Ideas are not protected. Neither by patents, nor copyright, nor trademark. If you want to make your idea worthy with regard to the law, you have to "fully specify" it, turning it into an invention (patent), or code (copyright).