3 ms·
"The paradigm was so disruptive that it was suppressed by computer scientists for decades." It didn't really get better from there.
by jbellis 13y ago
"The paradigm was so disruptive that it was suppressed by computer scientists for decades."
It didn't really get better from there.
- hga 13y agoYeah, I must have imagined the 1-2? computer science professors at MIT who had active data flow research programs when I showed up in 1979. The general opinion on campus was "this looks very interesting" but no one had yet figured out how to make it really work and be comprehendable.
- gruseom 13y agoAnd still haven't. The most interesting attempts, like Ed Ashcroft's and Bill Wadge's Lucid, seem to have withered. It's not clear to me whether that was because they didn't offer enough that was different, or it was too hard to make the implementations efficient, or both. And yet it all does still "look very interesting".
- zeteo 13y agoI kept reading and reading through poetic descriptions of how valuable the method is, hoping to get to at least a short description of what the method actually is. Excitedly I clicked on "the company published FBP as a technical disclosure bulletin", only to get to the Wikipedia entry for "IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin". Reluctantly I must conclude that the article is pure and content-less bullshit instead.
- nathan_long 13y agoWell, we all know how reluctant scientists are to promote groundbreaking ideas, since all prestige in science comes from doing what's been done before. No wait, scratch that. That's just in BizzaroWorld.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]