Slashdot Mirror


Dennis Ritchie Day

mikejuk writes "Today we celebrate Dennis Ritchie Day, an idea proposed by Tim O'Reilly. Ritchie, who died earlier this month, made contributions to computing that are so deeply woven into the fabric that they impact us all. We now have to remark on the elephant in the room. If Dennis Ritchie hadn't died just after Steve Jobs, there would probably have been no suggestion of a day to mark his achievements. We have to admit that it is largely a response to the perhaps over-reaction to Steve Jobs which highlighted the inequality in the public recognition of the people who really make their world work."

35 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. That's why the world works. by TheLink · · Score: 3, Informative

    If we had days and events to recognize each and everyone who helped to make the world work, the world would not work.

    --
    1. Re:That's why the world works. by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      California had a day to recognize Steve Jobs, Dennis Ritchie had a much larger impact on the world at large than Steve did. Steve just was really good at PR.

    2. Re:That's why the world works. by jo_ham · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You missed off "in my opinion" from the end of your comment. As good as "inventing Unix and C" is, "helping to ignite the home personal computer industry" is not far off. Neither did it alone, of course. And Dennis didn't court the spotlight like Jobs, but that doesn't automatically make Jobs' contributions any less profound. They both made pretty significant contributions in the genesis of the modern computing era.

      Should I start a thread on how Alan Turing is overrated because of Tom Flowers and Bill Tutte doing the heavy lifting on the Lorenz cipher - ie, the really hard one :p

      (for the record, I do not believe Alan Turing is overrated, but I should probably specifically spell that out for the purposes of quickfire moderators who read but don't comprehend)

    3. Re:That's why the world works. by Hope+Thelps · · Score: 2

      California had a day to recognize Steve Jobs, Dennis Ritchie had a much larger impact on the world at large than Steve did. Steve just was really good at PR.

      Absolutely true, but the best response to that is to roll your eyes at the idiots who came up with "Steve Jobs day", not to come up with days for everyone who had a larger impact than him. Einstein had more impact thn Steve Jobs or Dennis Ritchie, but he doesn't get a day as far as I know.

      --
      To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
    4. Re:That's why the world works. by Improv · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to highlight one of the founders of Apple, the Woz was far more influential and important than Jobs. Also, a much better guy.

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    5. Re:That's why the world works. by BitZtream · · Score: 2

      the Woz was far more influential and important than Jobs.

      Why so? Woz didn't do anything that others at the time weren't doing (neither did Jobs). The company basically fell apart when Jobs left and was restored to health when he returned. When Woz left, well nothing happened.

      Also, a much better guy.

      I see no evidence to support that, Woz would appear to be an arrogant self absorbed jerk (saying that as a arrogant self absorbed jerk myself). He seems very bitter about not being as widely recognized as Steve Jobs and tries to be snarky about anything related to Apple because it wasn't his idea/work. He reminds me a lot of RMS, except not as well known.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    6. Re:That's why the world works. by jo_ham · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And who says I won't? Why does it have to be mutually exclusive, is the point I'm driving at with the Ritchie/Jobs comparisons. It seems to be a common feature of slashdot lately that it's not good enough to simply like or support Thing A, but that part of that means trashing Thing B and disparaging anyone who thinks Thing B has any positive aspects at all. Why must I choose between Woz and Jobs? Why can't I highlight both? Or Ritchie and Jobs?

      I think Dennis Ritchie should be recognised for his massive contributions to computing, but because I also think Steve Jobs deserves recognition my opinions are now suddenly invalid as a "worthless fanboy who only wants to suck Steve's cock" (and I'm really not using hyperbole there)?

    7. Re:That's why the world works. by wjwlsn · · Score: 2

      I'm no fan of Steve Jobs, but I think it's reasonable to acknowledge his contributions. His particular talents seem to have been the imagination and insight required to identify and specify the attributes of devices that people would *want* to use, an unwillingness to accept anything less, and the charisma to make others share his vision.

      Don't get the idea that I'm some kind of Apple fanboy or Jobs-fawner. I pretty much despise Apple, and never liked Jobs. There are only two Apple devices even allowed in my home, and I tried damn hard to persuade my wife and my daughter to choose something other than ipods (but failed).

      Anyway, this is supposed to be about Dennis Ritchie, so I'll shut up about Jobs now.

      --
      Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
    8. Re:That's why the world works. by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Which is precisely why Ritchie is in need of a day of recognition. The work he did was influential in a way that Steve Jobs can only dream of. Hell, even the products that Apple sells these days make heavy use of innovations from C and Unix.

    9. Re:That's why the world works. by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Not really, home computing is definitely significant, but it was Woz and the guys at PARC that ought to get the lion's share of the credit there. Woz for allowing for the Apple ][ to be produced at a price that people could afford and PARC for creating all the stuff that Apple ultimately ripped off for the Mac. Take away either of those and you probably wouldn't have Apple computers still on sale by Apple.

      Computing power was increasing, even without Apple, machines would have been powerful enough to run Unix before too long. Sure, Apple sped the process up, but it's really hard to suggest that it wouldn't have happened. Unix OTOH, was completely revolutionary and between it and C, you have a very hard time finding products that don't at some point come into contact with either of those things during production. Apple products, not so much.

      It doesn't mean that Steve Jobs didn't contribute, but it does lead to questions as to why he's deserving of a day, when somebody who gave so much more hasn't.

    10. Re:That's why the world works. by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have a name for what Woz did. He was an engineer. Jobs was an entrepreneur and product manager.

      Woz was an extremely good engineer. I don't know that he was the best in the world. But for the sake of argument lets say he was.
      Jobs was a extremely good entrepreneur and product manager. I think probably the best in the world.

      Which is more important? Here on Slashdot a lot of people think Woz. Because there's a lot of engineers here. They idolise engineering and don't really like managers.
      On sites filled with entrepreneurs, product managers or designers, they'd say Jobs was the more important.

      My take is that there are plenty of talented engineers in the world. And in any case, Woz gave up back in the 1980s. The pinnacle of his achievement was the Apple II.
      Jobs as an entrepreneur and product manager was the best in the world at what he did. And he didn't stop after the Apple II. He went on to many more successful product developments, and moved Apple from near bankruptcy to the biggest capitalised company in the world in just 14 years.

      In my book Jobs was far more important than Woz. Woz is undoubtably a nicer guy than Jobs was, but that's rather irrelevant to a discussion on their influence and achievement.

    11. Re:That's why the world works. by DougReed · · Score: 2

      I am not sure that is quite true. Bill Gates is the one that was 'really good at PR'. Not to belittle Steve. He was good too (indeed he may have learned from Bill because he got better as he went along), but Steve actually had a better idea. M$ has never had ANYTHING that wasn't stolen. Windows only exists because they copied the Mac (or tried to), and yet Gates seemingly had the ability to sell eyeglasses to a blind man. As for Dennis. Indeed, he is the one who deserves the praise, but were it not for Steve, only the people on this blog would know what a computer was, because my father would never have an MS-DOS or a UNIX machine. The Commodore Amiga deserved the crown, but Commodore couldn't market eyesight to a blind man. M$ would not have built Windows without the Mac, because M$ has no vision at all. It is possible that without Steve, Commodore might have stumbled into the spotlight by accident, but I doubt they could have marketed their way to success because from a marketing point of view they did absolutely everything wrong. These guys tried to SELL their demo units to the reviewers!!

      Anyway.. Happy Dennis Ritchie Day. He deserves the praise. Without him I might be a Cab driver.

    12. Re:That's why the world works. by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      according to dennis himself, he just did what any sane person would have done in his position, that he was just at the right place, tasked with the right task, at the right time, which is why he didn't go out making an ass out of himself every day yelling that he invented free as in freedom computing movement. and the people who were in that position, to work with advanced computers so early, was much, much more limited limited set of people than people who were later in the same position as steve(that makes steve 'special', that despite not being the only ceo in the town in early '80s he still ran first to yell about gui for home use).

      that's the beauty of c anyhow is that it, or something very, very similar would have been invented regardless of dennis. no nonsense, no lsd inspired trains of thought- no calling shit what it isn't, no sandcastles made of shit to hide what you're doing. just manipulating memory, logically.

      in that his different to steve. steve did what any person with need for cash from selling computers would have done... but still quite few people actually did. why didn't others go to parc to spy on the shit? (probably because they thought memory as too expensive for gui to be of practical home use, tbh).

      still. bill gate's BASIC day should woop the ass of both dennis and steve days. basic is less obvious of an invention than asm or c, even though it has sandcastles of shit to hide what actually happens.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    13. Re:That's why the world works. by MrHanky · · Score: 2

      So you seriously think people would give a shit when Steve Jobs died if he didn't come back to Apple and release the iPod?

    14. Re:That's why the world works. by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 2

      Do we remember the guy who invented the screw or do we remember the guy who invented the screw head that was easy to use(Philips)?

      We remember guys like Gutenberg, Edison, Tesla and Jobs is that they put themselves in the open to have their ideas told to the world. The reason why Dennis Ritchie didn't get remembered the same way steve jobs did was simply because he kept his head low and didn't make noise about his accomplishments.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    15. Re:That's why the world works. by Genda · · Score: 2

      This is a truly confused conversations. Stop comparing apples to atom bombs. Steve J. was a fine example of a business man. Not an inventor (though inventive), not an engineer (though he had an interesting vision for technology) and a fascinating mix of contradictory elements. There is good evidence that he was bipolar, which is consistent with the strong likelihood that about 80% of the greatest creations of humanity were created by bipolar people in their manic phase. Pixar, Next, Apple all point at some

      Woz on the other hand is a far more multidimensional human being. He has always been more engaged in the world and creating stuff. He was the man who took Steve's vision and made it physical realityn. Of course Apple continue after Woz left, any good engineer replicates himself in an organization and makes certain that his technical vision lives long after he moves on. He spent a lot of time on the cutting edge, and changed the way a generation of young people saw the world. That my friends by definition is a HUGE IMPACT.

      Ritchie on the other hand, is altogether a different beast than either Steves. He made whole branches of what exists today possible. His contributions shaped the very nature of what is possible today in world. We live in a Ritchie shaped world. In the primeval past of computers it was a proprietary world of big iron and no standards. It was Ritchie who brought order to the chaos, and made the subsequent growth and industries possible. Jobs built a business. Ritchie built a world. You simply can't compare that.

  2. Well... by calexontheroad66 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People like good salesmen not people that work in unknown office spaces, regardless of their contributions.
    A public image is the luxury of those who don't have to labour, and so can afford to put their efforts into selling their ideas and themselves.
    Dennis Ritchie was a giant within his tribe, RIP.

  3. dmr by amanicdroid · · Score: 5, Informative

    Today we come to slashdot not to piss on the memory of appliance designer Steve Jobs but to celebrate a true computer scientist and engineer dmr.

    He was not a boisterous man or one too proud and busy to assist various teenagers on the internet who now wish they'd archived those emails. He was able to admit his greatest works were flawed. And perhaps most importantly, the man could create excellent documentation.

    To commemorate dmr is to commemorate ourselves as his ideas still hold sway. He lives on in the constantly modified code base. His DNA remaining as his direct additions are slowly dropped from the source while his patterns remain.

    ALL HAIL ELDER GOD OF COMPUTING DMR, MAY HIS LANGUAGE AND OS LIVE ON UNTIL WE ADOPT SOMETHING BETTER

    1. Re:dmr by RDW · · Score: 2

      At St. Paul's Cathedral, London, there is no elaborate memorial for its architect, Christopher Wren, who is buried there. Instead there's a simple Latin inscription that notes that he lived 'not for his own profit but for the public good' and ends with 'Reader, if you seek his monument - look around you.'

  4. Re:Will there be readings from... by tomhudson · · Score: 2

    The book of K&R?

    ... and singing ...

    free() at last!
    free() at last!
    Error: Double free or corruption.
    Aborted!

  5. Really? by mlingojones · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Am I missing something here that says we have to compare all these people on the merits of their accomplishments?

    Steve Jobs did great things. Dennis Ritchie did great things as well. We can argue all day about who was "better" or "more influential", but what's the point? Why not just celebrate their lives to honor them, instead of to passive-aggressively piss off people who look up to someone else?

    If you celebrate Dennis Ritchie, do it for his monumental contributions to computing. If you do it just because you think Steve Jobs got too much attention, you're doing a disservice to both of their memories.

    1. Re:Really? by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Am I missing something here that says we have to compare all these people on the merits of their accomplishments?

      No, you're not missing it, because it's not there. The summary and article say nothing of the sort.

      What they do point out is that if we hadn't been somewhat sensitized to it because of annoyance at the media reaction to Jobs' death, we likely wouldn't have paid nearly as much attention as we have to Ritchie's passing. This isn't a question of comparing Jobs and Ritchie, it's just pointing out that we often don't recognize the accomplishments of the people who really changed the world, but did it quietly.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:Really? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      Am I missing something here that says we have to compare all these people on the merits of their accomplishments?

      How can the level of recognition you get not be a de facto comparison? It's not whether about you give your grandkids $50 or $500 for Christmas, it's that you gave $50 to one and $500 to the other. And the response is like "Giving $500 is crazy, but if you gave it to Steve then Dennis damn well deserves the same." I feel that is a logical and natural reaction, by breaking the scale with Jobs you are changing the expectations for everyone else.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  6. Recognition vs. Relevance. by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...the inequality in the public recognition of the people who really make their world work."

    You're joking, right?

    When a surgeon saves the life of a loved one, no one EVER walks right past the doctor to make a phone call to thank the inventor of plastic, blended steels, or surgical procedures. I don't even have to wonder how many surgically-enhanced women walking around these days have EVER thought to thank the inventor of silicone, because the answer is likely zero.

    And the same thing should be expected in damn near any other industry. Most of us probably owe our lives to some scientist or inventor, yet you've probably not even bothered to know who it is, much less give them any recognition, living or dead.

    1. Re:Recognition vs. Relevance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Haha, that's an awesome analogy, and it's so very true.

      While the contributions Ritchie made are ubiquitous and crucial, there's a much greater disconnect between him and the end users. Steve Jobs had a direct connection between his inventions and end users.

  7. Re:C is just a rip off of BCPL by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

    BCPL only had one data type. Everything in it was a word. It didn't have arrays or structures, just arithmetic on words (which could then be treated as pointer to other words). Try writing C with no data types other than uintptr_t, intptr_t and uintptr_t* - no arrays, no structs, no chars - and see how far you get.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. Re:Happy DMR Day! by Junta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe he was a big fan of Chrismas Eve?

    (Oct 30 = Dec24)

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  9. So be it by fishtorte · · Score: 2

    How can it be a bad thing for Steve Jobs' death to have brought increased awareness of Dennis Ritchie's contributions? Assuming, that is, that there's ANY connection between the two. It doesn't have to be a competition.

  10. More about media attention than the two men... by DThorne · · Score: 2

    ...and there's nothing wrong with that. The point to me wasn't so much about 'who was better or more influential', it was clearly about the fact that mass media was utterly swamped, to the point of nausea on my part anyway, with Jobs 'retrospectives' and commentaries. Celebrating that this other man who so recently passed was in many ways more influential on the 'guts' of IT, ostensibly what the readers on slashdot would care more about, is neither disrespectful to Jobs or out of place in any way.

    1. Re:More about media attention than the two men... by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      The ironic thing is there are only two sentences about Dennis Ritchie in the summary. The rest of the paragraph is entirely about Steve Jobs. It is all about Steve Jobs. Why not make a day for John McCarthy?

      The fact that even Steve Job haters feel a need to react to his death shows the outsized influence the man had, for whatever reason.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. Obituary in The Guardian by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Informative
    Dennis Ritchie obit

    OK, a number of people contacted the Guardian before this, but however it happened they got the point and gave him a full page on the Saturday edition. I hope that goes some way to make up for Google having to help rescue Bletchley Park.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  12. On Dennis Ritchie: A conversation with Brian Kerni by mikejuk · · Score: 3, Informative
  13. Re:Well..a bit more than that by Broolucks · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Had Einstein not existed, somebody else would have come up with the Theory of Relativity shortly thereafter. It was just the next logical step in the development of physics. Similarly, had Ritchie not existed, all of modern computing would still work pretty much the same way it does now, using tools other people would have developed. Had Jobs not existed, Apple would probably never have got off the ground, an Apple lookalike would have come up a bit later instead, somebody else would have introduced multitouch devices, and so forth. Heck, if Walt Disney never existed, some other creations would have taken the available mindshare instead of Mickey and al. One must always keep in mind that when people invent or develop stuff, it reduces the incentives for others to redo the work. Worse yet, these people who might have done the job later on might have done it better - there was a need for a language like C, and had Ritchie not come up with C, a much better language might have taken its role. Or a worse one. We simply don't know. Basically, people deserve a lot of credit for their discoveries, but the impact of their discoveries is a poor barometer for these people's importance. The more impact a discovery has, the more likely it is that somebody will do it eventually.

  14. better idea by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

    2day should be another SEVE JOBS day instead cuz he gave us all da ipodz!!!

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  15. C and Unix not used initially at Apple by perpenso · · Score: 3

    Jobs and Woz wouldn't be where they are without each other, nor would they be where they are without Ritchie (and a whole slew of other pioneers).

    The Apple II's OS was written in assembly. The original 3rd party development environments were assembly and BASIC. The Macintosh's OS was written in Pascal. The original 3rd party development environment was Pascal. C and Unix were not really involved in Apple's *initial* success.