Grace Hopper, UNIVAC, and the First Programming Language

Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 02:39 · Score: 0

Maybe we can dispel the myth that only "space exploration spinoffs" gave us the technology to create computers. That's a common myth among Space Nutters.

Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 02:45 · Score: 0

Memory storage in tanks of liquid mercury? Clearly alien technology...
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 02:53 · Score: 0

You mean computers came FIRST? That would be the OPPOSITE of their point.
But you knew that, right? You're able to understand two sentences, right?
Re:Finally! by ColdWetDog · 2014-05-18 03:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Bah, you're the only one worried about that.
But anyway, all I wanted to say is to go look at that picture. Look at that control panel! Now that's technology. Switches! Meters! A model 30 (?) teletype with key travel measured in furlongs.
(And, as an aside, for a picture in the 1960's it was remarkably 'diverse'. A woman, a black man and and a skinny geek with a tie. Mayhaps we've not moved as far forward as we give ourselves credit for.)

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Finally! by sjames · 2014-05-18 03:38 · Score: 1

I believe the preferred term is 'astro-nut'.
Re:Finally! by PPH · 2014-05-18 03:50 · Score: 2

And, as an aside, for a picture in the 1960's it was remarkably 'diverse'.
The guy with the suit jacket looks Indian. Who called tech support?

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Finally! by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2014-05-18 04:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've some doubts about quite a lot of the commonly accepted modern wisdom vis a vis women in the workplace back then and even previously. Most of the women in my family worked outside the home back in the 60s and 70s, some even had excellent careers. I would strongly question the narrative that second wave feminism "liberated" women or did much more than take credit for social changes which were well under way regardless due to increasing average wealth and the invention of labour saving domestic devices.
Going back even further, the book "No Votes for Women" explores some of the realities at the time of the Suffragettes and raises the point that we should be perhaps less asking how shitty conditions were for women in the past but rather asking how comparitively shitty it was for men - the answer is usually quite a bit more:
"Almost immediately after the April committee meetings, Helena Gilder detailed the reasons she opposed woman suffrage in a long letter to her dearest friend , Mary Hallock Foote...
She , like many other anti-suffragists, believed in an inextricable link between military service and voting; only a person able to sacrifice himself on the battlefield earned the right to vote."
"In view of the privileges they already had women did not need political rights. Mariana Van Rensselaer articulated her particular views about women in articles for the New York World in May and June 1894;...She considered the enfranchisement of millions of women a risk not worth taking. Women already held more privileges than men under the law.
Specifically, Van Rensselaer wrote, a woman had control of her earnings, her personal property, and any real estate she owned. She could carry on a business or profession, she had no responsibility for her husband’s debts, and she was not required to support him.
She could sue and be sued, and she could make contracts. She had no obligation to serve on juries. With her husband she had equal rights to their children and, yet, he was obligated to support her and her children. Women were entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce, while a man could not ask for alimony.
She was entitled to one third of her husband’s real estate upon his death, but he was not entitled to her property after death if there were no children. Van Rensselaer concluded that the distribution of labor and privileges between women and men seemed fair, that the different roles of women and men were critically important, and that it was “slander” to claim that men did not already take good care of women."
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:09 · Score: 0

Which moron tagged this as flamebait?
Good disclosure of fact, Intrepid imaginaut.
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 06:06 · Score: 0

Geez, people, haven't you realized by now that any AC post using the term "Space Nutter" is from a single longtime troll here who enjoys derailing threads (either that or he is an entirely sincere eccentric with an idée fixe)? No need to feed the troll.
Re:Finally! by msauve · 2014-05-18 06:28 · Score: 1

Government funding certainly accelerated the development of some technologies.

But your apparent sentiment seems correct - in the grand scheme, if the technologies were delayed by 5 or 10 years it wouldn't really matter. It's commercial use and the corresponding economies of scale which really make a difference.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Finally! by LifesABeach · 2014-05-18 06:46 · Score: 0

An straight forward example of Stockholm Syndrome?
Re:Finally! by clovis · 2014-05-18 07:16 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm an old guy, and I'm telling you that what you just said was, well, un-educated. It's hard to come up with a good word for that without sounding pejorative, so I apologize in advance. Anyway, I've heard this before and it's bullshit. It always seems to come from people who were born into wealth or privilege.
It's very much like "slaves got free food and shelter, so what were they complaining about argument".
Did you notice that the list of privileges you laid out are all in relation to a husband? For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband. People in power had absolutely no problem with refusing jobs, loans, or admittance to anything by saying to her face "no, you're a female, this is for men ". Trust me on this; I was there.
until the 1960's:
Almost no University or medical school (except women's colleges) would accept her as a student unless she was a blood relative of a faculty member or wealthy donor.
Those that did accept women only allowed them into nursing, teaching, or similar programs. yes, I know there were a few exceptions and those were EXCEPTIONS, so don't give us any examples of someone who got in.
Almost no bank would grant a loan for business or property without the written permission of her husband, unless she was a blood relative of one of the bank's officers.
Almost no career advancement path was available for a woman, but they could do the same work with a lower title. Women could be bookkeepers, but not accountants. They could move from clerk to office manager (of clerks), but not district or regional managers.
Yes, there were women that got careers and did well. My mother was one of those, but had to fight bald-faced anti-female discrimination constantly. No one should go through what she did just to get her job done. She was an exception, probably a 5-sigma IQ and also raised as a tomboy, and also had a husband who backed her up. Very few people can't bring to a fight what she was born with; she was one of the exceptions.
But for every one of those there were countless others who had the door slammed in their face or stabbed in the back for the sole reason they were female.
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:19 · Score: 0

I can understand two sentences - but you don't seem to be able to draw a logical conclusion.
If you can't see how ballistic flight and rockets are not linked, then it is quite obvious that your opinion is flawed.
Re:Finally! by Vellmont · 2014-05-18 09:22 · Score: 1

I found his post to question conventional wisdom, but it's certainly not "un-educated". You seem to be responding to someone else's post, or someone else's opinion. Being "an old guy", perhaps you're simply making the same response that's won you praise over your entire life. i.e. "women have had to fight for rights and were actively discriminated against". That seems to be your entire response. While what you say is true, the conversation has shifted among generations now, so perhaps you need to make note of that.
I really think you need to go back and re-read what the OP said (especially if your response is it's simply "un-educated"). He's simply questioning whether the the gains women have gotten came through second wave feminism or through other means. I think there's a lot of truth to that. A lot of women went to work because of economic need, not because of ideology. Economically having half the work force idle isn't advantageous. Essentially a lot of women got jobs because the family needed the money, not because they read "the second sex", or because Gloria Steinhem existed. You can disagree if you like, and that's fine, but having a different opinion on where change comes isn't un-educated.
Nowhere did the OP make any claims that banks wouldn't give out loans, or that women weren't discriminated against. That's an argument I think you've been making for years, and people of your generation have fought you on. The OP is younger than you, and comes from a very different background and likely takes very different opinions than people of your generation. So taking him to task and putting him in the place of a member of your generation kind of misses the point, and the point that the OP was trying to make.

--
AccountKiller
Re:Finally! by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-05-18 10:20 · Score: 1

Maybe we can dispel the myth that only "space exploration spinoffs" gave us the technology to create computers. That's a common myth among Space Nutters.
Congratulations on the strawman you just beat the crap out of.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 13:50 · Score: 0

you do realise this is Slashdot, bringing logic and reasoned debate here is unlikely to be appreciated (though to prove myself wrong, I do appreciate it)
Re:Finally! by Mr.+Slippery · 2014-05-18 14:37 · Score: 1

Essentially a lot of women got jobs because the family needed the money, not because they read "the second sex", or because Gloria Steinhem existed.
Except that's not the matter in question. Could a woman in 1950 get a job? Sure. As a secretary, or a nurse, or a kindergarten teacher. The feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s opened the door to women taking employment on an equal basis with men. Of course that job's not done yet; and there are elements of the feminism movement that have gotten distracted with misandrist and authoritarian bullshit (both before and after the 60s and 70s), but that doesn't change the progress that has happened because of feminism.

You can disagree if you like, and that's fine, but having a different opinion on where change comes isn't un-educated.
When your opinion is at odds with historical facts,yes, that's ipso facto uneducated.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Finally! by Jmc23 · 2014-05-18 16:03 · Score: 1

Perhaps women don't belong in all professions?
It's a little naive and 'uneducated' to think women have the same capabilities as men, their biological soup is completely different...mostly.

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 17:10 · Score: 2, Informative

It's very much like "slaves got free food and shelter, so what were they complaining about argument".

Aaand we're off. Women as historical slaves. Let's take a closer look at that, shall we?
NO, that's not what I said. I did NOT say women were historical slaves.
I am comparing the points made by of Gilder and Rensselaer (that women had certain advantages in society) to the similar points made by slavery apologists.
Perhaps, I did a bad job of what I was stating. I am comparing the type of argument, not the living conditions. Once again, I am NOT stating that women were historical slaves. For one thing, in western society at least, marriage was voluntary.

Did you notice that the list of privileges you laid out are all in relation to a husband?

Yes, that was the point I was making. Wives in comparison to husbands, people of equivalent social status except one has more priveleges than the other, and it turns out that it wasn't the husband. This came from a woman of the time incidentally, and an awful lot of women agreed with her. Of course they were probably also incensed at the attitudes of the suffragettes towards poor folk and those of colour.
The point I'm making is that these advantages were only between husband and wife. Not everyone is married. I don't see why single women should be punished for the advantages married women have.

For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband.

So any unmarried women rapidly died off in poverty?
NO! I did not say that!
I meant what I said. What I said was "For almost all women before the 1960's the only possible comfortable life was by having a husband."
How can you conflate not "being comfortable" with "died off in poverty"?
Seriously, how?

People in power had absolutely no problem with refusing jobs, loans, or admittance to anything by saying to her face "no, you're a female, this is for men ". Trust me on this; I was there.

And do you think that was because they hated women or didn't want to have to deal with long absences if she got pregnant? There's usually a practical reason for all of this stuff once you scratch the surface and dispense with the hysterics.
Well, the answer is "all of the above". Some hated women; misogynists had free reign not so long ago, and there was no body of law to stop them.
True, some "didn't want to have to deal with long absences if she got pregnant", but that was an after-the-fact excuse. The people who said those kinds of things would not hire a women under any circumstance, so the pregnancy argument is BS. It falls into the same kinds of reason people gave for why they would not hire a Catholic or a Jew. It's just an excuse for their bias. And yes, there may be practical reasons for all this stuff, but the point is you cannot exclude all of a class of people (women) on the grounds that some have a problem, like getting pregnant.

Almost no University or medical school (except women's colleges) would accept her as a student unless she was a blood relative of a faculty member or wealthy donor.

Which applied to men also. Third level education was for rich people back then.
Are you being intentionally obtuse? This has nothing to do with being rich or poor.
Most universities did not consider nor accept the applications of females. When you look closer at the cases of those few who did get in, you'll find that those women did not go through the application process, they were admitted through the intervention of a person of influence.

yes, I know there were a few exceptions and those were EXCEPTIONS, so don't give us any examples of someone who got in.

Okay, so
Re:Finally! by clovis · 2014-05-18 18:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dang, my other response got posted as AC. It's pretty obvious it was me.

I found his post to question conventional wisdom, but it's certainly not "un-educated". You seem to be responding to someone else's post, or someone else's opinion. Being "an old guy", perhaps you're simply making the same response that's won you praise over your entire life. i.e. "women have had to fight for rights and were actively discriminated against".
As a side note, I haven't won praise over my entire life because I was on the wrong side for a very long time. The reformed sinner is the most annoying; that's me.

That seems to be your entire response. While what you say is true, the conversation has shifted among generations now, so perhaps you need to make note of that.
I really think you need to go back and re-read what the OP said (especially if your response is it's simply "un-educated"). He's simply questioning whether the the gains women have gotten came through second wave feminism or through other means.
And he's right to question whither the gains came, and it's complex and interesting topic.

I think there's a lot of truth to that. A lot of women went to work because of economic need, not because of ideology. Economically having half the work force idle isn't advantageous. Essentially a lot of women got jobs because the family needed the money, not because they read "the second sex", or because Gloria Steinhem existed.
And I think you're correct there as well. I do agree that the feminist movement was not responsible for women wanting to get jobs.
However, a big part of the problem was that previously women were prevented from getting many jobs due to legally allowed anti-female bias. They did not apply to schools that did not accept their applications, and they did not apply for jobs that they knew would would be denied. The feminist movement did much to fix those laws.

You can disagree if you like, and that's fine, but having a different opinion on where change comes isn't un-educated.
Nowhere did the OP make any claims that banks wouldn't give out loans, or that women weren't discriminated against. That's an argument I think you've been making for years, and people of your generation have fought you on. The OP is younger than you, and comes from a very different background and likely takes very different opinions than people of your generation. So taking him to task and putting him in the place of a member of your generation kind of misses the point, and the point that the OP was trying to make.
Well, you got me there - I may be making assumptions about where he's coming from that aren't there.
However, here's what he said:
>quote>I've some doubts about quite a lot of the commonly accepted modern wisdom vis a vis women in the workplace back then and even previously. Most of the women in my family worked outside the home back in the 60s and 70s, some even had excellent careers.
That's what puts it in my ballpark.
He is implying that because some women (his relatives) had good careers back in the 60's and 70's the commonly accepted wisdom is in doubt.
That is the part I'm saying he is uneducated on. As I said before, there's not a good word that doesn't sounds pejorative. On second thought, I could have said "you don't know what you're talking about."
Anyway. It's nice that he had relatives that had good careers, but my point is that for MOST women they could NOT have many careers due to institutionalized anti-female bias on many levels. That is the part I'm saying he is uneducated on. Anti-female bias was still legal and still the standard in the 60's and was only beginning to go away in the 70's. The removal of legally allowed anti-female bias (or rather the creating the laws that prohibited bias) was largely done by the feminist movement - they are the people who got the work done.
Also, I strongly
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 19:40 · Score: 0

I just love the way you posted as AC this time...
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 20:27 · Score: 0

It's good because this whole thread now belongs at zero level.
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-19 01:59 · Score: 0

I just love the way you posted as AC this time...
I apologize for that. I went to eat supper and forgot to re-logon when I returned. It was quite obvious that it was me, wasn't it? heh
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-19 06:14 · Score: 0

What clovis said -- I grew up in the 1960s, and have read a lot here as well. So, I call BS on the "women controlled their personal property" line, for example. And most banks wouldn't even lend a married woman money unless her husband cosigned.
Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-22 00:29 · Score: 0

> If you can't see how ballistic flight and rockets are not linked, then it is quite obvious that your opinion is flawed.
Well, in ICBMs, which are both rockets and ballistic, they definitely *are* linked.
I'm not sure what GP means by "gave way." Yielded, maybe, in the sense of "produced" not "set aside for." It's not like we threw out artillery and ballistics because of space flight.

Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 02:46 · Score: 1

Well, in this case it was ballistic flight - more specifically artillery tables. Of course ballistic flight gave way to rocketry which gave way to SPACE FLIGHT!

Oh My - they might have a point.

whopping 2.25 MHz by nurb432 · 2014-05-18 02:46 · Score: 1

Still faster than my first 8080....

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:whopping 2.25 MHz by mcgrew · 2014-05-18 03:02 · Score: 2

Faster than my first two computers, too, but neither of them weighed thirteen tons! Also, storage access would have been a much bigger problem than clock speed, seeing as how they used mercury switches to store bits.
I found this article about Univac fascinating, an account of Univac vs. humans.

...Those circumstances set the stage for the election night dramatics of the Univac â" perhaps the most significant live TV performance ever by a computer. It might just be technology's equivalent of the first Elvis appearance on The Ed Sullivan Show. Except parents didn't worry that computers were going to destroy the moral fiber of the nation's youth, which shows you how much parents know.
In a few hours on Nov. 4, 1952, Univac altered politics, changed the world's perception of computers and upended the tech industry's status quo. Along the way, it embarrassed CBS long before Dan Rather could do that all by himself...
It also mentions that a musical Hallmark card has more computing power than Univac did.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:whopping 2.25 MHz by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:34 · Score: 1

Not mercury switches, mercury delay lines.
Re:whopping 2.25 MHz by sjames · 2014-05-18 04:06 · Score: 1

Nevertheless, the 8080 probably ran faster due to lower memory latency.
Re:whopping 2.25 MHz by ShanghaiBill · 2014-05-18 05:17 · Score: 1

Nevertheless, the 8080 probably ran faster due to lower memory latency.
Also less down time to replace burnt out vacuum tubes.
Re:whopping 2.25 MHz by 91degrees · 2014-05-18 05:35 · Score: 1

Large scale valve/vacuum tube electronics were actually a lot more reliable that radios using the same technology. Heating and cooling does the damage. Keep the things running and they're more than good enough for the GPO's telephone exchanges in the 1930's. This was one of the arguments that had to be won for Colossus, but it was actually a lot more reliable than the bombes.
Re:whopping 2.25 MHz by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-18 06:58 · Score: 2

They were still quite unreliable. But it's my understanding that what they were doing was running them at reduced power for useful computations (which worked since even the tubes used in computers were always sort of high-power components, comparatively speaking, and you didn't actually need their full power to implement computer logic). Then, in maintenance periods, they'd run them on full power for a while, and replace those that burned out during that period. That is supposedly what actually made it possible to rung long stateful computations even with vacuum tubes.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Nanosecond by p51d007 · 2014-05-18 03:01 · Score: 2

I would have loved to have one of her nanoseconds she use to hand out when asked how long was a nanosecond. I remember when she was on the tonight show with Johnny Carson and told that story. She use to keep a bag full of them with her all the time and would hand them out, when someone would ask how long is a nanosecond. One smart lady!

Not really by localroger · 2014-05-18 03:03 · Score: 1

Your 8080 didn't spend most of its time waiting for instructions to pop out of the end of its delay line memory. (My first computer was also powered by an 8080, represent.)

--
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]

Re:Not really by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:07 · Score: 1

also, the Univac I did two instructions per clock cycle
Re:Not really by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:10 · Score: 1

I meant didn't do, it did about 2000 ops per second
Re:Not really by nurb432 · 2014-05-18 04:57 · Score: 1

Talking pure CPU speed here, not 'actual performance'

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

look, it's the moron AC again by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 03:06 · Score: 5, Insightful

no one has claimed only space exploration spinoffs gave us computer tech. once again you raise a straw man and then set it on fire.

However, ICBM and space exploration certainly did drive integrated circuit technology for computers. First computers built of Jack Kirby's solid state integrated circuits used by the air force in Minuteman II guidance system

Re:look, it's the moron AC again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:16 · Score: 0

Sure, but the technology came first. It's not like Kirby woke up one day and sad to himself "gee I really wish we could explore space, let me invent the IC".
There was more than just ICBMs as a reason to build computers. Administrative and business uses, for example. Automation in factories, etc.
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 03:21 · Score: 3

nope, too expensive at the time, over $400 a chip with a few gates, for those mundane uses. The computer made of them is the point of the argument, only military could afford it at the time. The commercial chips came later
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 04:03 · Score: 0

Yes, the military. No one needed to go into space. All this does is reinforce my point. And in any case, the inventions came from smart individuals, it's not their fault that our social model is so corrupt we only invest massive amounts of money when we think we can kill people.
Don't kid yourself, the "Space Age" was mostly about scaring our enemies by showing what big ICBMs we have. All that "exploration" baloney is just propaganda.
Strangely enough, plenty of banks and companies bought computers, that market alone allowed IBM to create most of the technologies associated with computers in the '60s. Weird that companies could afford transistor computers eh? You think transistors were cheap back then?
So according to you, companies could afford transistor computers, but somehow we needed space to afford ICs?
Really?
The reality is that without space we'd have the same computers we have now. Because people are smart, not because space is empty.
Oh and "mundane uses"? Compared to WHAT in 1961? In the 1950s those "mundane uses" were the CUTTING EDGE of what was possible and people were worried about "electronic brains"!!!
Jesus Christ you're ignorant.
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:41 · Score: 1

ICBM go into space.
Those commecial uses you mention came later after the military use, 1963 and later to be specific.
And of course many, many other advances in computers driven by the space program since the military use.
try again, try harder, you're losing the argument
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by Hognoxious · 2014-05-18 05:45 · Score: 1

I guess this doesn't count, because it wasn't in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:52 · Score: 0

No, sorry, this very story is about a computer that :
"The first UNIVAC was accepted by the United States Census Bureau on March 31, 1951, and was dedicated on June 14 that year. The fifth machine (built for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission) was used by CBS to predict the result of the 1952 presidential election. With a sample of just 1% of the voting population it famously predicted an Eisenhower landslide while the conventional wisdom favored Stevenson."
I believe 1951 came before even Sputnik. I don't think we're even having the same argument, you're all over the place because you can't focus on simple facts.
Computers came FIRST. Because they are USEFUL IN AND OF THEMSELVES. No one needed to go into space. Sorry.
So, answer me this:
"Oh and "mundane uses"? Compared to WHAT in 1961? In the 1950s those "mundane uses" were the CUTTING EDGE of what was possible and people were worried about "electronic brains"!!!"
So? What was mundane about automating a payroll in NINETEEN SIXTY FUCKING ONE?
Try again, space whackjob!
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 05:53 · Score: 1

Leo doesn't count because it uses discrete components only, no integrated circuits.
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 06:09 · Score: 2

you lost the thread pal
I was talking of "mundane uses" of the integrated circuits that were FIRST used to make computers for space-going (though suborbital) ICBM
the computers you mention are made non-integrated discrete components, I'm talking about the improvements to computers like integrated circuit technology that were driven by space
typical anti-space nutter, ignorant of science and technology and the history of either
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 06:54 · Score: 0

That's Jack Ki*l*by...
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-18 07:13 · Score: 1

So according to you, companies could afford transistor computers, but somehow we needed space to afford ICs?
The Apollo Guidance Computer bankrolled Fairchild's IC plans, taught Fairchild engineers to do actual IC QA properly (which was probably the most important outcome to them), and consumed something like 60% of ICs produced in that era or so. So, yes, there was a significant boost from the space program to the IC ecosystem at that time.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-18 07:39 · Score: 1

The problem is that computers built out of discrete transistors were actually cheaper than those built of ICs at least until something like the second half of 1960s or so. In addition, engineers didn't have much incentive to use ICs, not just a financial one, but some even viewed it as demeaning to their circuit design expertise. There was really a lot of misconception about ICs in the engineering circles, and IC vendors sort of had a hard time trying to sell the early circuits. It took the aerospace industry (which was able and willing to pay premium cost for ICs in the 1960s, just as it was able and willing to pay premium cost for high-specced discrete transistors in the 1950s, something that engineers for the commercial market were unwilling to do) to get the whole IC thing off the ground, especially as far as production lines and actual engineering and manufacturing experience were concerned. Without aerospace people (who needed compact, low power parts regardless of their initial cost), it probably would have happened anyway, but quite a bit later, since early on, there were no incentives for the switch in most markets, given how the meager manufacturing automation and only few components on every single chip didn't really contribute to reducing the costs.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:57 · Score: 0

However, ICBM and space exploration certainly did drive integrated circuit technology for computers. First computers built of Jack Kirby's solid state integrated circuits used by the air force in Minuteman II guidance system
Yep. Three really important technologies came out of the Apollo program: Integrated circuit technology (being able to snap an entire circuit in and out quickly made them modular, easy to fix, small and light), numerical control machining (10,000 parts all made exactly the same way as machinists all have their 'own way' of making parts, with slightly different levels of finish, stress, etc.), and solid fuel for rockets. Intel turned the IC into a microprocessor in 1969, CNC has been in use for quite a while (using Fanuc codes), but has more recently developed into 3d printing (not using Fanuc codes). Solid fuel rocket motors are a means to their own end.
Re:look, it's the moron AC again by Tablizer · 2014-05-18 18:38 · Score: 1

the inventions came from smart individuals, it's not their fault that our social model is so corrupt we only invest massive amounts of money when we think we can kill people.
That's the way it's always been; war drives innovation, or at least the funding of it, for good or bad.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Grace Hopper and the Tech Ethos by crunchy_one · 2014-05-18 03:10 · Score: 1

Grace put it so beautifully: "It is often easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission".

Re: Grace Hopper and the Tech Ethos by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:41 · Score: 0

And if she wasn't a woman no one would care
Re: Grace Hopper and the Tech Ethos by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:19 · Score: 2

waddaya talking about, see those geek glasses and big honking nose, she wasn't sliding along on beauty, wan't hired for her looks. she got ahead on brains and accomplishment like a true geek icon

Nanoseconds by GlobalEcho · 2014-05-18 03:19 · Score: 5, Interesting

My mother was one of the first female programmers at Honeywell back in the `70s. Back then, IT companies recruited their programmers from the ranks of mathematicians (like mom).

Grace Hopper was a big hero to her, and one of the things I remember best is mom coming home with a short length of wire given out by Adm. Hopper at a speech -- sized to represent the distance electricity would travel in a nanosecond.

Mom is still coding, by the way, writing custom software for my dad's business in Python/Django/PostgreSQL. Dad complains that she's obsessed with the programming and won't do anything else. Sounds like me...thanks for the genes, mom!

Re:Nanoseconds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:45 · Score: 0

Mom is still coding, by the way, writing custom software for my dad's business in Python/Django/PostgreSQL. Dad complains that she's obsessed with the programming and won't do anything else. Sounds like me...thanks for the genes, mom!
It really is in the genes. In fact no matter how different they may look on the outside you can spot a fellow coder after a few minutes of casual talk. It's almost a need. If I don't code for a while then I get the urge and eventually have to.
Re:Nanoseconds by loftarasa · 2014-05-18 04:15 · Score: 1

Go Python/Django/PostgreSQL!

Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:23 · Score: 0

One garage tall, five thousand tubes wide, thirteen tons of American pride! UNIVACQUEROOOOOOOOOOO, UNIVACQUERO.

Sunday Reads by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:23 · Score: 1

Long, interesting and informative and unapologetically technical essays like this are why I get up early and brew coffee in the morning,

Re:Sunday Reads by SternisheFan · 2014-05-18 04:57 · Score: 2

Other Slashdot Grace Hopper stories here... http://developers.slashdot.org...

Evidence - you don't need to grow up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:25 · Score: 1

I love slashdot, and about every 10 postings there is someone ranting about "am I too old to be a programmer." Have some Grace, and do what you like to do. Grace Hopper is a real role model. Just because technology makes you feel like you are playing with toys, does not mean you have to grow up - just go out and play, and build something.

Re:Evidence - you don't need to grow up by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-05-18 03:37 · Score: 2

Easy to say. When Grace was around she wasn't competing against Indian, Chinese, Brazilian and Russian university students being pumped out by the thousands every year.

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Evidence - you don't need to grow up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:47 · Score: 1

Easy to say. When Grace was around she wasn't competing against Indian, Chinese, Brazilian and Russian university students being pumped out by the thousands every year.
I really believe that coding is "in the blood." The problem with countries like India and China is that the economic rewards force people without the "knack" to go into the field -- and suck badly at it. So not only are you competing with someone who works for 1/10th of your salary but they suck at it but go to great lengths to hide that fact (because they aren't busy coding). Sigh. It does suck.
Re:Evidence - you don't need to grow up by retchdog · 2014-05-18 05:52 · Score: 0

you're not nearly as special as you think you are. if they are able to "hide that fact" successfully, it means that there is nothing remarkable about what you're doing.
grow up, you pathetic fantasist. "coding" is not a particularly heritable property, and there is no fucking "knack". that was just something in a Dilbert cartoon.

--
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Re:Evidence - you don't need to grow up by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 20:44 · Score: 0

Anyone remember the guy who outsourced his own job to China?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw...

And it turns out that the job done in China was above par -the employee's "code was clean, well written, and submitted in a timely fashion. Quarter after quarter, his performance review noted him as the best developer in the building," according to the Verizon Security Blog.

"All told, it looked like he earned several hundred thousand dollars a year, and only had to pay the Chinese consulting firm about fifty grand annually," according to the Security Blog.
Guess how much the real developers in China doing the "best developer in the building" job earn? I doubt it's 50K/year.
People who say there will always be jobs when the robots take over are idiots. Guess what the Chinese workers will be doing when Foxconn replaces more and more of them with robots. They'll be doing the jobs the US workers are supposed to learn to do.

not FLOWMATIC per se by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 03:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Grace's big contribution from the time wasn't the particular FLOWMATIC language but rather she conceived of the compiler. And note her languages were intended to be legible even to non-programmers, what an usual concept eh?

Re:not FLOWMATIC per se by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:46 · Score: 1

Yes, regretted by programmers since, tasked with fixing the well-intentioned programs coded by non-programmers.
Re:not FLOWMATIC per se by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 04:00 · Score: 0

And note her languages were intended to be legible even to non-programmers, what an usual concept eh?
They would have to be since there were not any programmers to speak of at the time.
Re:not FLOWMATIC per se by phantomfive · 2014-05-18 06:23 · Score: 2

And note her languages were intended to be legible even to non-programmers, what an usual concept eh?
And that's how we ended up with COBOL.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:not FLOWMATIC per se by narcc · 2014-05-18 07:58 · Score: 2

And that's how we ended up with COBOL.
Which has proven itself over and over again. It's stable, reliable, and easy to maintain. COBOL runs the world, for good reasons.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:not FLOWMATIC per se by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:31 · Score: 1

Bah -- just remember who invented computer science: chemists, physicists and mathematicians!
Unlike Richard Stallman, it was WWII heros like Grace Hopper that helped make us 'free' to make software!
Thats right, computers were invented by 'squares' not by hippies and their 'information wants to be free' Gen X children ;)
Re:not FLOWMATIC per se by phantomfive · 2014-05-18 09:54 · Score: 1

It's stable, reliable, and easy to maintain.
lol is it re-entrant?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:not FLOWMATIC per se by rubycodez · 2014-05-24 12:53 · Score: 1

yes, if REENTRANT compiler directive used in Micro Focus COBOL, or RENT directive on IBM COBOL

Coined the term 'bug' by PPH · 2014-05-18 03:54 · Score: 3, Funny

... after finding an actual bug in a computer. Imagine how different things might have turned out.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Coined the term 'bug' by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:27 · Score: 1

other critters have caused problems in electrical systems, we might be saying a snake or rat or spider.
in not entirely unrelated concept, we have the molly-guard thanks to the toddler Molly who pushed the big red button on an IBM 4341 at UIUC twice in a day.
Re:Coined the term 'bug' by ArsonSmith · 2014-05-18 05:36 · Score: 1

Not to mention all the work she did for Kung Fu.
"When you snatch the pebble from my had you will be ready Grace Hopper."

--
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
Re:Coined the term 'bug' by Coditor · 2014-05-18 06:46 · Score: 1

The computer with a bug that was actually a fish is a new one to me. Imagine if debugging today was called fishing.
Re:Coined the term 'bug' by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 07:00 · Score: 3, Informative

No she didn't.
The journal entry reads "first example of an actual bug", which clearly indicates that the term was already in use.
If you look in the OED, the first use of "bug" to mean a technical glitch of some sort dates from 1870-1899.
To be fair, Hopper never claimed to have originated the term.
Re:Coined the term 'bug' by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 07:12 · Score: 0

Finding pussy in a computer... you wish!
Re:Coined the term 'bug' by PPH · 2014-05-18 15:05 · Score: 2

I have several folders dedicated to just that.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

vacuum tube? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 03:58 · Score: 0

had to look that up because I haven't heard of vacuum tube. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube

Vacuum tubes are big. What's with the glass? Reminds me of the old light bulbs that burn out and generate tons of heat.

Re:vacuum tube? by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:31 · Score: 1

Never heard of klystrons and magnetrons and traveling wave tubes and vacuum flourescent displays? my god you are ignorant of current 21st electrical technology!
Re:vacuum tube? by Brett+Buck · 2014-05-18 04:52 · Score: 1

OK, this has almost got to be a troll (tipoff being "old light bulbs", that sounds like someone posing as a newb/idiot), but, WTF??
The glass is to enclose the vacuum inside, hence the phrase "vacuum tube". Inside there are filaments just like a conventional light bulb. These usually heat a plate, which can then emit electrons via thermionic emission. This emission can be controlled by altering the voltages on the various parts. This permits many applications like amplification.
Almost anything we do today could theoretically be done using tubes instead of transistors, given the necessary input power. There are still many applications that are better done this way than with transistors, particularly, high-power and high-frequency radio transmitters, where transistors can barely be made to work
Re:vacuum tube? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-18 06:38 · Score: 1

had to look that up because I haven't heard of vacuum tube.
It sort of resembles your head, only with a lot of electrodes inside.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

May first computer was named 11 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 04:04 · Score: 0

It was the 11 UNIVAC made

That's ADMIRAL Grace Hopper by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 04:08 · Score: 0

Get her title right, hippy, Grace Hopper was a WWII hero!

Re:That's ADMIRAL Grace Hopper by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:37 · Score: 4, Informative

no, Rear Admiral, Lower Half. But during WW II, her rank was Lieutenant, Junior Grade. She retired with rank of Commander in 1966. But then returned to service and was promoted to Captain in 1973, and by act of Congress Commodore in 1983. That rank had its name changed to the RA, LH in the 90s
Re:That's ADMIRAL Grace Hopper by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 07:26 · Score: 1

Rear Admiral, Lower Half...
...Hind Quartermaster, First Hopper, Near Seamen, Can't miss it.
Re:That's ADMIRAL Grace Hopper by Just+Some+Guy · 2014-05-18 11:42 · Score: 1

In the Navy, you never qualify an officer's rank unless describing them officially. A Lieutenant, JG is addressed as "Lieutenant". Lieutenant Commander Smith is simply "Commander Smith". And ${anything} Admiral Jones is just "Admiral Jones". It was impolitic to remind an officer that they were the low-rent version of the "full" version of their rank.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:That's ADMIRAL Grace Hopper by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 14:03 · Score: 0

"And by act of Congress Commodore in 1983"
Don't you mean the rank of Commodore 64? ;-) 1983 would have been a good year to make that change!
Re:That's ADMIRAL Grace Hopper by Electrawn · 2014-05-19 01:22 · Score: 1

Whoosh. (You guys are +5ing bad facts again). The point the AC is trying to make is that Admiral Grace Hopper has a title, and it should be used to honor her career.
Also, the Commodore to Rear Admiral changed occurred in 1985, and Admiral Hopper was involuntarily retired in 1986.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by tulcod · 2014-05-18 04:16 · Score: 1

a short length of wire [...] sized to represent the distance electricity would travel in a nanosecond.

You cannot see such a piece of wire. Electrons drift at a speed in the order of 0.0002m/s, giving you a wire length in the order of 10^-13 meters.

Electromagnetic waves "travel" roughly at the speed of light. But when someone talks about the travel of electricity, the thing that people think about is the flow of electrons, not the electromagnetic waves.

Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by tulcod · 2014-05-18 04:18 · Score: 1

(on top of that, there are no electromagnetic waves travelling along a wire conducting DC current)
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by flargleblarg · 2014-05-18 04:36 · Score: 1

But when someone talks about the travel of electricity, the thing that people think about is the flow of electrons, not the electromagnetic waves.
Speak for yourself, eh? I don't think it ever once even remotely occurred to me that someone meant the flow of electrons when they talked about the travel of electricity. I have always thought of the travel of electricity as the flow of the electromagnetic waves.
(Note: I am not an electrical engineer and have not studied electricity intimately.)
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:51 · Score: 1

But there are no true DC currents, real current flow is not of constant amplitude and not of infinite duration in time. Therefore, real DC current in the real world always has EM waves associated with it.
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 05:13 · Score: 0

There are plenty EM waves, what the hell are you smoking? How do you think electrons repel each other?
And EM waves travel not roughly at the speed of light, they travel *at* the speed of light, whatever that happens to be in that medium. In a vacuum, that's "the" speed of light. In a common coax cable dielectric, it's like 60% of that. Even in fiber optics.
*Do* be a dear and stop spreading your pretentious ignorance, OK?
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by ShanghaiBill · 2014-05-18 05:24 · Score: 1

(on top of that, there are no electromagnetic waves travelling along a wire conducting DC current)
DC current is not used to transmit information. Even if your message is "00000000000000000..." you would use data compression, Manchester encoding, RS-232, or something else with an embedded clock or framing.
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by tulcod · 2014-05-18 05:52 · Score: 1

How do you think electrons repel each other?
Electromagnetic fields, which do not "travel" in any reasonable sense.
The speed of light thing is actually more complicated if you involve relativity and quantum field theory and stuff, which is why I used the word "roughly" to protect myself exactly from people who pretend to know physics. If I had said "exactly at the speed of light", some theoretical physicist would have made some remark about this or that field theory or standard model solution or whatever kind of physics that I don't quite understand.
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by tulcod · 2014-05-18 05:53 · Score: 1

I have always thought of the travel of electricity as the flow of the electromagnetic waves.
Then how does DC electricity "travel" from your phone charger to your phone? (again, there are no electromagnetic waves, even though there may be fields. a wave is a changing field.)
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-05-18 06:57 · Score: 1

I think you mean a time domain reflectometer. A VNA would be a terrible choice.

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 16:51 · Score: 0

Grace Hopper used the wires to discuss how far the *signal* would travel in a nanosecond, since that's the part that matters in a computer.
One reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N... . Many others available via Google.
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 18:20 · Score: 1

She knows that. See this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Re:Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-22 00:41 · Score: 0

> Then how does DC electricity "travel" from your phone charger to your phone?
Electricity doesn't travel, though. "Electricity" is travel - travel of charge.

2.25 MHz, sort of by sribe · 2014-05-18 04:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, but if you're wondering, it took about 1,000 clock cycles per instruction...

Re:2.25 MHz, sort of by rubycodez · 2014-05-18 04:53 · Score: 2

yeah they should have used red mercury instead of mercury in those delay line memory tubes!

Offtopic: on the speed of electricity by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 04:38 · Score: 0

Where'd anybody say anything about EM waves?

All it takes is a vector network analyzer to time-calibrate a piece of wire. Hopper's 11.8-inch figure is close enough for government work and, more importantly, its original purpose of helping people put a tangible quantity to the concept. She also used to say that you could put a nanosecond in a pepper grinder and make picoseconds all over the table.

Can't. Resist. Optimizing. by Toad-san · 2014-05-18 05:16 · Score: 1

"(1) COMPARE PRODUCT-NO (A) WITH PRODUCT-NO (B) ; IF GREATER GO TO OPERATION 10 ;
IF EQUAL GO TO OPERATION 5 ; OTHERWISE GO TO OPERATION 2 .
(2) TRANSFER A TO D ."

What's wrong (if useless is wrong) with this code?

Godz, I can't believe I'm trying to correct Hopper's code!

Re:Can't. Resist. Optimizing. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 07:07 · Score: 0

I'd be willing to bet the "OTHERWISE" clause is required per the language spec.

It weighed 13 tons, had 5,200 vacuum tubes, and to by Hognoxious · 2014-05-18 05:40 · Score: 1

It weighed 13 tons, had 5,200 vacuum tubes, and took up a whole garage

InB4 yo mamma.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

"computer" mean person before 1948 by peter303 · 2014-05-18 06:04 · Score: 1

Insurance companies and some science labs used clerks to make long calculations. The majority were woman. The "electronic computer" was a futuristic machine to emulate such people.

HFT places use microwaves or fiber for this reason by peter303 · 2014-05-18 06:05 · Score: 1

They are 2x - 3x faster than copper signals. Those millisconds add up in financial trading.

The first programming language? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-05-18 06:36 · Score: 1

I didn't know Grace Hopper had anything to do with Plankalkul.

--
Ezekiel 23:20

Re:Nanoseconds -That never happened - by angel'o'sphere · 2014-05-18 07:41 · Score: 1

Or Grace hopper was wrong.
Electric current moves in the range of a millimeters per second.
A nanosecond long travel range would be invisible to the human eye.
Perhaps you meant 'electric signal'?

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Good God, look at that code by Chris+Mattern · 2014-05-18 08:02 · Score: 1

How can you fit that much spaghetti in 17 lines??

Re:Good God, look at that code by Tablizer · 2014-05-18 10:38 · Score: 1

Now a-days we use OOP to get similar bloat:
NORMAL
print(a + b)
BLOATED
am = new math.ArithmeticManager()
opA = new math.Operand((float) a)
opB = new math.Operand((float) b)
am.addOperand(opA)
am.addOperand(opB)
am.operator = new math.operators.Addition()
am.executeMathOperation()
system.io.output.print(am.mathOperationResult())

--
Table-ized A.I.

ultra low latency over microwave and laser link by lophophore · 2014-05-18 08:14 · Score: 2

not fiber. point to point laser and microwave links.

I believe you are referring to ultra-low-latency trading.

They prefer microwave links to fiber because the microwave signals propagate faster through air than light does through a glass fiber. Light travels through glass fiber at about 65% of c, which is also pretty comparable to the velocity of a electric signal in a transmission line (.65 to .75 c) (which is where Admiral Hopper ties in)

Microwave signals propagate though air at damned close to the speed of light, and the microwave signal paths are direct by necessity. That means the path can be significantly less than half the distance a cable (electric or optic) and the speed about 50% faster.

Optical paths are also used, they are by laser through the air. This has the same direct path, near c speed advantages as microwave.

--
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:42 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard who tosses names & runs http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:44 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard who tosses names & runs http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:45 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard who tosses names & runs http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

K. S. Kyosuke gets called out & ran by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 08:46 · Score: 0

From a fair challenge like a chickenshit blowhard who tosses names & runs http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

Several errors in TFA by kevmeister · 2014-05-18 12:49 · Score: 1

While the section on Admiral Hopper looks correct to my knowledge, there were some hitorical flaws.

The UNIVAC I was produced after Remington Rand purchased EMCC, though Grace Hopper did work for EMCC prior to its acquisition a year after she started work there. The UNIVAC I was built by Remington Rand. Four years later, Remington Rand merged all three of their computer related operations into the UNIVAC division. The following year Remington Rand merged with Sperry to become Sperry Rand and the UNIVAC division was renamed as the Univac Division of Sperry Rand. Again, in 1986 Burroughs (another early office equipment company) merged with Sperry Rand to become Unisys. It is incorrect to state that Univac was "acquired" by Unisys as Unisys did not exist unto the merger of Sperry Rand and Burroughs. Wikipedia has what I believe to be a correct history of Univac.

The article also states that "Punch-card calculating machines already existed, but crucially, UNIVAC was programmable." I worked on IBM "Accounting Machines" and I assure you that they were programmable. See the article on the IBM 402 and 403. It was programmed by moving wires on a control card... similar to an old telephone switch board. The control board is pictured in the article. Programming was limited and painful, but it was certainly programmable and surprisingly powerful for its time.

While at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory I was fortunate to attend talk by Admiral Hopper (Ret.), then working for Digital. It was a great talk, but she didn't bring enough nanoseconds for the overflow audience, so I am sad to say that I don't have one, though I did have an RG-59 coax nanosecond I had made myself to explain why cable length was critical to certain synchronized operations.

--
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired

Re:Nanoseconds -That never happened - by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-18 18:22 · Score: 0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Konrad Zuze by Capt.Albatross · 2014-05-19 02:05 · Score: 1

Konrad Zuse, who also built the first Turing-complete computer, designed the first high-level computer language, Plankalkul, in 1945 (though no compiler was implemented until 1998.)

Re:Konrad Zuze by vikingpower · 2014-05-20 08:15 · Score: 1

Plankalkül, with an Umlaut on the "u"....

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace

Oblig Simpsons by IwantToKeepAnon · 2014-05-19 02:12 · Score: 1

It weighed 13 tons ...

and smelled like a stake! UNIVAC-nero! (whip crack)

--
"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way." -- Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy

The 2.25 mhz clock is a bit misleading by Anonymous Coward · 2014-05-19 06:05 · Score: 0

The clock rate was *much* higher than the instructions-per-second rate. The wikipedia article on it says it could do a whopping 1905 instructions per second.

That matches my intuition -- I used a Honeywell 200 in the early 1970s that took about 30 microseconds to do a 30 bit add (5 6-bit characters in a variable word length machine), so it was doing about 30KIPS. But it had solid state transistors, and so was probably much faster than the Univac 1.

Slashdot Mirror

Grace Hopper, UNIVAC, and the First Programming Language

137 comments