Donald Knuth Worried About the "Dumbing Down" of Computer Science History

Sheeit, journalist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

When you find yourself disagreeing like this to Don Knuth, of all people, and essentially calling him a myopic old coot, for reals nigga you better check yourself. The article doesn't even try to make a counterargument to itself.

Re:Sheeit, journalist by bmajik · 2014-12-26 05:15 · Score: 5, Informative

If you look up "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, there is an exception for Donald Knuth:
"footnote: It is never fallacious to properly cite Donald Knuth in lieu of providing your own argument."

--
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Re:Sheeit, journalist by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 06:43 · Score: 0

When you find yourself disagreeing like this to Don Knuth, of all people, and essentially calling him a myopic old coot, for reals nigga you better check yourself. The article doesn't even try to make a counterargument to itself.
If you look up "appeal to authority" logical fallacy, there is an exception for Donald Knuth:
"footnote: It is never fallacious to properly cite Donald Knuth in lieu of providing your own argument."
The amusing part about the grandparent poster is that the probability that he's actually ever *read* an academic work on the history of CS of the type Knuth wants is so close to zero as to be not worth discussing.
Re: Sheeit, journalist by Grant_Watson · 2014-12-26 11:40 · Score: 1

I thought the article unfairly patronized Knuth too, but it makes an interesting point -- that if the kind of history Knuth wants to see is to continue, it will have to be done in Computer Science departments. It also provides examples of other disciplines, like mathematics, that have made space for historians internally.
I'd love to see this happen, but I don't know if it's politically viable within the academy.

Can't live in the past! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:29 · Score: 0, Offtopic

We must go forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!

Re:Can't live in the past! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:32 · Score: 0, Insightful

And bad laws stifle freedom.
Re:Can't live in the past! by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-12-26 05:45 · Score: 1

And always twerking, twerking, twerking towards freedom!
FTFY
Re:Can't live in the past! by davester666 · 2014-12-26 06:01 · Score: 1

There are anti-twirling laws?

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Can't live in the past! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 07:11 · Score: 0

There's a feeling ev'ry where of bigger things in
store; Of new horizons coming into view; Our
aim is clear - To make each year to exceed the one before;
Staying in the lead in ev'rything we do; The
will to win is build right in; It will not be denied; And
we will go ahead, we know by working side by side:
Ever Onward, Ever Onward; That's the spirit
that has brought us fame --- We are big but bigger we will
be; We can't fail for all can see -- That to serve the humanity
has been our aim -- Our products now are
know in ev'ry zone --- Our reputation
sparkles like a gem --- We've fought our way thru and new
Fields we're sure to conquer too -- For the Ever Onward, Ever Onward I --- B ---
M
Ever Onward, Ever Onward; We're bound to the
top to never fall --- Right here and now we thankfully
Pledge our sincerest loyalty -- To the corporation
that's the best of all --- Our leaders we
revere --- and while we're here --- Let's show the world just
what we think of them! --- So let us sing men, sing men,
Once or twice then sing again, For the Ever Onward, Ever Onward I --- B ---
M.

Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

One of the problems this causes is the lack of appreciation for the mathematics that defines computer science, and computers.

The end result is politicians making stupid laws and judges making stupid rulings...

With stupid patents on software being the stupid result.

Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:34 · Score: 0, Flamebait

could this be because of the faux outrage that not enough women are in STEM, therefore they are dumbing it down to try and get more women into STEM???
Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:39 · Score: 0

No.
Re:Knuth is right. by jones_supa · 2014-12-26 05:06 · Score: 0

One of the problems this causes is the lack of appreciation for the mathematics that defines computer science
How does mathematics define computer science?
Re:Knuth is right. by Penguinisto · 2014-12-26 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

One of the problems this causes is the lack of appreciation for the mathematics that defines computer science, and computers.
The end result is politicians making stupid laws and judges making stupid rulings...
With stupid patents on software being the stupid result.
Umm, dunno how else to say it, but honestly? Ignorance of mathematics isn't the cause of stupid laws and policy around technology; lobbyist money, bullshit ideological agendas, and self-serving BS flowing from big tech corporations would be your most likely sources for that.
I'm perfectly willing and eager to be proven wrong on this, but I figure in the list of causes? Ignorance of CompSci-oriented mathematics is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the list of causes for stupid governmental tech policy, somewhere around "Clippy".

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 05:32 · Score: 3, Informative

Discreet mathematique are the basis for computing
Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 05:40 · Score: 2, Informative

It is the mathematics that IS the computer. Studies on math proofs, generation of ballistics tables, navigation tables...
And the realization that the ideal person to carry out mathematical steps is someone without imagination, can't be distracted, and doesn't lose their place... In sort, a "mechanical calculator"... Thus the invention of calculators - going back to the Abacus (1300BC), Napiers Bones for multiplication (1612AD), and slide rules (1622AD), first mechanical adding machine (Pascal, 1642), the Leibniz calculator (add/subtract/multiply/divide, in 1674. Then we get to Charles Babbage and the difference engine (for creating navigation tables in 1822) who then moves on to what is considered the first real computer - the Analytical Enging (1838) - even though it was never built, the first programs were written to show what it could do (credited to Ada Lovelace). - references from http://www.mortgagecalculator.org/helpful-advice/chronological-calculator-timeline.php, which has a nice presentation for calculator history
The instruction cycle is how math formulas are evaluated.
The CPU is an implementation of the instruction cycle, combined with an arithmetic logic unit.
All that a CPU can do is defined by mathematics - it can't do anything else.
Re:Knuth is right. by ShanghaiBill · 2014-12-26 06:21 · Score: 3, Funny

Discreet mathematique are the basis for computing
Not at the semiconductor junction level. It is quantum wave functions at that level. Talking about computers as discrete devices, and ignoring the quantum physics, is just dumbing it down. Kids should not be learning programming until they can independently derive both Schrodinger's equation and Heisenburg's matricies.
Re:Knuth is right. by beelsebob · 2014-12-26 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

If you don't know how mathematics defines computer science, then you need to go and study more computer science.
Re:Knuth is right. by Mr.+Slippery · 2014-12-26 07:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Discreet mathematique are the basis for computing
Not at the semiconductor junction level.

You are confusing computing with computers. Indeed, a "computer" used to be a human being implementing algorithms with a mechanical adding machine, and then were tube-based electrical systems, and in the future may use something wholely other than semiconductors; computing, however, remains the same. A bubble sort is still a bubbble sort.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 09:14 · Score: 0

Once upon a time a computer was a person running the algorithm *by hand*.
The word existed before adding machines...
Re:Knuth is right. by plopez · 2014-12-26 09:57 · Score: 1

You do not need electronics to compute or even build computers. You can use water, electrical circuits, wooden blocks, etc. But in any case, the Mathematics does not change. Just the implementation.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Re:Knuth is right. by plopez · 2014-12-26 10:07 · Score: 1

"Ignorance of mathematics isn't the cause of stupid laws and policy around technology..."
I agree somewhat but I think ignorance allows bad policy to exists. Some of what you hear coming from hucksters would, IMO, be akin to repealing the laws of gravity or building a warp drive. I am very skeptical of things such as facial recognition, trawling email to stop terrorist attacks, data mining, anything that handles data which is not ACID compliant, missile defense, and AI (AFAIAC it will never truly exist) though reflection is nice to have.
CS and the principles behind it are often so abstract that many people are not even aware of when they are lying.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 10:10 · Score: 0

Ignorance causes most of the failures.
Ignorance of science is how creationism revived.
Ignorance of science is how proposed laws of outlawing irrational numbers were discussed in the century before last, things about ruling that PI is 3.
Sheer ignorance.
Re:Knuth is right. by swilly · 2014-12-26 10:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Computer Science is a pretty broad area of study, but I consider these three problems to be the most fundamental.
Computability: What can a computer do and what can it not do? There are an uncountably infinite number of problems that a computer cannot solve (undecidable), and only a countably infinite number of problems that a computer can solve (decidable). Fortunately, most of the interesting problems are decidable.
Complexity: If a computer can do something, how efficiently can it be done? This goes beyond the Big O you are taught as an undergraduate, and considered language spaces such as P, NP, PSPACE, EXPTIME, and so on. It also considered not only computation time but space (unfortunately, few undergraduates are introduced to space constraints of algorithms, a great interview question is to list an example of a sorting algorithm that takes constant space).
Equivalence: Given two algorithms, do they perform the same computation? Meaning that given the same inputs they will always produce the same outputs (and yes, side effects are also outputs)? A less strict (but of more practical importance) is whether or not a program meets a specification.
Computability and complexity are both important parts of the theory of computation, which is usually built on top of Language Theory, which is itself built on top of Set Theory. The hardest problem is modern mathematics may be P = NP, which is also a Computer Science problem. The third problem requires creating mathematical proofs using Formal Logic. It is also an excellent example of an undecidable problem, meaning that there is no general algorithm that can perform it for every program (in other words, it's something that a computer cannot do).
In addition to Set Theory and Formal Logic, Computer Science relies heavily on Boolean Algebra, Graph Theory, and other areas of Discrete Mathematics. Computer Science is inherently cross-disciplinary, but at its core it is closer to Mathematics than it is to Engineering or Science.
Re: Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 13:23 · Score: 0

With most people in the US these days when you try to point out when their beliefs are wrong, why they are wrong, and prove what the correct facts are they simply believe what they originally believed even more forcefully.
Got in an argument with such a person yesterday. The self-contradictory things he was saying made my brain hurt.
The problem with bad laws and bad regulations is self interest. Ignorance is a problem because the people who ought to know the laws and regulations are bad and hold the lawmakers and regulators accountable for trying to screw them over don't do so.
Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 15:06 · Score: 0

Computers are for solving problems.
Computer science is for solving the problem of finding better solutions, the actual results of calculations are unimportant except in that they be correct.
Re:Knuth is right. by phantomfive · 2014-12-26 17:38 · Score: 1

The word [computer] existed before adding machines...
I understand your point, but I'm not sure this is true. There were adding machines in the 1600s.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 20:05 · Score: 0

Ignorance of mathematics (not just comp sci related) is one of the things that allows lobbyists and their democracy corrupting ilk to flourish. If more people understood basic math (including statistics), demagogic BS of "special interest groups" would be more difficult to present as anything other than what it is - huge pile of smoking BS. So, you're both right.
Re:Knuth is right. by TuringTest · 2014-12-27 03:08 · Score: 1

In addition to Set Theory and Formal Logic, Computer Science relies heavily on Boolean Algebra, Graph Theory, and other areas of Discrete Mathematics. Computer Science is inherently cross-disciplinary, but at its core it is closer to Mathematics than it is to Engineering or Science.
You miss the parts that are very close to Linguistics and Information science: Ontologies, Information retrieval, Semiotics, and the all-important Human-Computer Interaction - how to build a computation environment that's efficient for humans to interact with. Maybe this is not a well-defined problem in a mathematical sense, but it's at the core of all programming activity beyond the level of micro-instructions.
This is not merely cross-disciplinary work; those are also essential parts of the science of computation, little related to mathematics yet highly relevant to all projects in the computing field, either in research or business - although many are unaware of their relevance.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Re:Knuth is right. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 05:39 · Score: 0

could this be because of the faux outrage that not enough women are in STEM, therefore they are dumbing it down to try and get more women into STEM???
Yes, insofar as:
- communism/socialist societies "dumb down" everything, in the goal that "everyone must be equal" and brought up or down to the same level; "mastery learning" (see Khan Academy, which the Dept. of Ed. recently did a study to gauge whether it should be imported into K12 schools and elsewhere) is specifically about "reducing achievement gaps"; see also "Benjamin Bloom" and many others; this goes WAY back, decades (perhaps centuries) so is nothing new at all
- The U.S. Dept. of Ed. (not limited to the U.S. -- it is an international agenda, in fact the U.S. imported both our pre-DOE education system and the "new" communist-style "global" education/economy) promotes "mastery learning" which is entirely dedicated to the idea of promoting a suitable "learning environment" and that students (and all citizens, State education underpins the whole economy, education is simply a tool here to achieve larger ends and predefined goals) are simply "inputs" to be molded to produce pre-determined "outputs"
- communist education revolves around Pavlovian conditioning, stimulus is given, and students are to respond appropriately
So, yes, but are missing the larger picture.
Another way to phrase this, is the "faux outrage" is certainly "real" but comes from "above", not from "below", and extends far beyond women & STEM -- it is a very old plan for world socialist government, education is merely one method to achieve that (and technology of course is one tool to get us there).
The "faux outrage" is simply not relevant -- that was never their goal, never their intention. They could not care less about STEM or women. Control, is the objective. More profitable than the free market. More efficient. Those on top, demand it.
It is not about women, nor STEM, much larger (and older) than that.
I should also add: historically there have been many women in technology, specifically computer science.
You miss the point. Faux outrage to get women into STEM is but a symptom, an inevitable by-product of the disease. "Faux" or not, a real issue to be tackled or not, from the larger and historical perspective, it is unlikely to have originated from women or the STEM community itself. It is much more likely to be part of a larger objective.
Really, you think the global billion-dollar corporations of the world care about men or women or STEM or ANYTHING more than money? I would call that "faux naivete." But a means to an end, nothing more.
Re:Knuth is right. by Millennium · 2014-12-29 09:02 · Score: 1

Electronics are only the substrate on which we (currently) perform (most) computing, not the computer itself. They're not even the first substrate that we've ever used for such things: ENIAC is widely credited as the first all-electric computer, but hybrid electronic-mechanical devices had been in use for several decades before then. Pure mechanical devices have also been used in limited capacities, even if we discount the works of Charles Babbage (since his Analytical Engine was never actually built).
But even mechanical devices are not the only substrate that can be used for computing. For example, fluidics (which replace electronics with flowing fluids of various sorts) see limited application on the macro-scale, but are a growing area of nanotechnology research. We've probably all seen examples of toy "computers" using marbles or billiard balls, and if you haven't then a quick YouTube search can provide some. These aren't fast enough to do many things on a practical time scale (by human standards), but they compute nonetheless.
That's why we say that mathematics defines computing. The actual process can be carried out in a multitude of ways, but the underlying processes are the same, and they are defined by the math of computing.

Summary needs a rewrite... by patniemeyer · 2014-12-26 04:30 · Score: 2

I get the gist of it but the summary is so mangled that it doesn't really make much sense.

Re:Summary needs a rewrite... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:41 · Score: 0

This is why it's always a good idea to read the actual article for further detail.
Re:Summary needs a rewrite... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 05:11 · Score: 0

I read a Slashdot summary once that did not need a rewrite.
Slashdot is a site of often-good links surrounded by usually-terrible writing.
It needs editors not "Editors".
Re:Summary needs a rewrite... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 05:33 · Score: 0

You must not speak Slashdot. Turn in your geek/nerd/neckbeard badge and be on your way, luddite!
Re:Summary needs a rewrite... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 06:28 · Score: 0

This is why it's always a good idea to read the actual article for further detail.
It's a bit late to start that precedent.

Just wondering by Marginal+Coward · 2014-12-26 04:32 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Just wondering - why is the guy who is known for "The Art of Computer Programming", the seminal work on algorithms, worried about the history of Computer Science?

Either way, I sure am glad he wrote that book. Otherwise, we might not have algorithms to this very day. Fortunately, many other algorithm books have come along to translate Knuth's book from the original Greek.

Re:Just wondering by plopez · 2014-12-26 10:08 · Score: 1

Why don't you ask him?

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Re:Just wondering by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 11:51 · Score: 0

My degree in computer science came from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Florida. Arts and sciences.
Re:Just wondering by PatPending · 2014-12-26 17:21 · Score: 2

Quote:
People frequently ask me why I picked such a title; and in fact some people apparently don't believe that I really did so, since I've seen at least one bibliographic reference to some books called "The Act of Computer Programming."
In this talk I shall try to explain why I think "Art" is the appropriate word. I will discuss what it means for something to be an art, in contrast to being a science; I will try to examine whether arts are good things or bad things; and I will try to show that a proper viewpoint of the subject will help us all to improve the quality of what we are now doing.
One of the first times I was ever asked about the title of my books was in 1966, during the last previous ACM national meeting held in Southern California. This was before any of the books were published, and I recall having lunch with a friend at the convention hotel. He knew how conceited I was, already at that time, so he asked if I was going to call my books "An Introduction to Don Knuth." I replied that, on tile contrary, I was naming the books after him. His name: Art Evans. (The Art of Computer Programming, in person.)
--via Preface of "Literate Programming" citing Knuth's Turing Award speech in 1974

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Re:Just wondering by Marginal+Coward · 2014-12-27 03:56 · Score: 1

Thanks for providing that. I'm reminded of why I didn't get very far reading "The Art (or Act) of Computer Programming": even after faithfully trudging through mounds of Dickensian prose, I still wasn't sure what point Knuth was trying to make.

False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesis by careysub · 2014-12-26 04:34 · Score: 5, Informative

Which is: there are no good technical histories of computer science.

Read TFA - he spends the majority of the article explaining in detail why Knuth is right - that there are indeed no good technical histories of computer science, and little prospect of any.

Where Haigh takes issue with Knuth is in arguing that the histories of computers and software, which are not technical histories, are nonetheless valuable in their own right, and thus Knuth's dismay at their publication is misplaced. But he otherwise agrees with Knuth has to say.

--
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj

Obligatory Dr. Fun reference by cruff · 2014-12-26 04:36 · Score: 3, Funny

Seems to me he's already sold out. :-) http://www.ibiblio.org/Dave/Dr-Fun/df200002/df20000210.jpg

Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:36 · Score: 3, Funny

Steve Jobs invented computers, smartphones, innovation, and minimalism.

What more does one need to know about computer science history?

Re:Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:49 · Score: 0

NASA invented computers to go to the Moon, everyone knows that.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-26 04:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, sort of. If you replace "NASA" by "MIT", "invented" by "vastly improved", and "computers" by "embedded systems", then you're right. :-)

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:56 · Score: 0

You clearly need a refresher on the history of CS.
Re: Jobs is Jesus by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-26 05:17 · Score: 1

What has that to do with CS? This is hardware engineering. Thank you, I don't need a refresher on that.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 05:45 · Score: 0

Electronic computers go back to the mid 40s in development.
That was how WWII was won - the secret messages of the Germans was being decoded by some of the first practical computers.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by PPH · 2014-12-26 05:45 · Score: 1

The British invented computers to crack Enigma.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-12-26 05:48 · Score: 1

Never mind that the computer that landed man on the moon was no smarter than a modern toaster.
Re: Jobs is Jesus by Skiron · 2014-12-26 05:52 · Score: 1

The definition of 'computer' is something that computes - the first computers were human.
Re: Jobs is Jesus by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-12-26 05:55 · Score: 1

There was more than that to WWII. How about electronic proximity fuzes? Digital voice encryption? Radar?

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re: Jobs is Jesus by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-26 06:09 · Score: 2

How is that relevant to my claim that MIT pushed for a modern-style embedded system (IC-fabricated stored program digital computer with a priority scheduling, event processing RTOS) as the solution for the control, navigation, and guidance of Apollo?
How's been your reading comprehension lately?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:Jobs is Jesus by Skiron · 2014-12-26 06:15 · Score: 1

AGM But there was more stuff than this, like radar, Houston computers and the like controlling things.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-12-26 06:21 · Score: 1

Or you could build your own AGM.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2014-12-26 06:50 · Score: 1

. . . and then the British rewarded the inventor by chemically castrating him, and then driving him to suicide.
The Germans will claim that the computer was invented by Konrad Zuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
Americans will cite ENIAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
. . . any other contenders . . . ?
I had the pleasure of hearing Prof. Forman Acton talk about programming the first von Neumann machines. He would refer to the inventors of FORTRAN as, "The FORTRAN boys" . . . his tales were a hoot and a half!

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Re: Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 07:04 · Score: 0

I think what's relevant to your claim as you lack something called "a sense of humor". It can commonly be found as something outrageous which is clearly untrue. A statement sort of like "NASA invented computers to go to the Moon, everyone knows that".
You see, the "everyone knows that" portion is the hint to that it was a joke.
And if you're going to go for serious stuff, I think you'll find that the IC was invented at TI by a 30 something engineer by the name of Jack Kilby who had just been hired. The first to use it was the Air Force. You notice MIT hasn't appeared yet? That being said, something like that has a massive history that can hardly be fully attributed to a single person, establishment, country or even time.
As for the software portion you attribute to MIT, well, those are constructs used in generic processing units, and Apollo was one of the first to adopt ICs, but the number of transistors were too small to actually be generic processors, so RTOS and priority scheduling wouldn't have been issues, it would have all been interrupt driven, processing the interrupts in a given sequence, no software scheduling at all. All of these would have been in the form of ASIC (application specific integrated circuit) which though now often have a programmable element, are really pieces of hardware geared towards performing a single task or small set of tasks.
So, I ask you, how's your making up history lately? And how's your understanding a joke lately?
Re: Jobs is Jesus by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-12-26 08:55 · Score: 1

I think what's relevant to your claim as you lack something called "a sense of humor". It can commonly be found as something outrageous which is clearly untrue. A statement sort of like "NASA invented computers to go to the Moon, everyone knows that". You see, the "everyone knows that" portion is the hint to that it was a joke.
Yes, and I pointed out that while ACs on /. for some incomprehensible reason often throw around sentences like these, there is actually a significant grain of truth in saying that the Apollo project stimulated certain major developments in the realm of computing (especially real-time computing, but not only there).

And if you're going to go for serious stuff, I think you'll find that the IC was invented at TI by a 30 something engineer by the name of Jack Kilby who had just been hired.
Kilby's design proved to be an evolutionary dead end. His handcrafted germanium stick design was unsuitable for mass production. It was more of a gimmick than anything else. The independent and contemporary planar silicon design by Hoerni and Noyce was vastly superior, and became the foundation for the Fairchild Micrologic line of circuits, which, second-sourced from Philco, were actually flown to the Moon. In fact, it's basically the ancestor of the silicon technology we're still using today.

The first to use it was the Air Force. You notice MIT hasn't appeared yet?
The AGC, designed by MIT IL and manufactured by Raytheon, was the first serially manufactured stored program, general purpose digital computer with logic fully fabricated from standardized IC gate circuits, with the ICs sourced in 1962 and first unit built in 1963. Do you have anything against that claim?

That being said, something like that has a massive history that can hardly be fully attributed to a single person, establishment, country or even time.
Yes, that must be the reason why you mention the historically less important Kilby, without whom the development at Fairchild would have continued unimpeded. Talk about simplifications of history...

As for the software portion you attribute to MIT, well, those are constructs used in generic processing units, and Apollo was one of the first to adopt ICs, but the number of transistors were too small to actually be generic processors, so RTOS and priority scheduling wouldn't have been issues, it would have all been interrupt driven, processing the interrupts in a given sequence, no software scheduling at all. All of these would have been in the form of ASIC (application specific integrated circuit) which though now often have a programmable element, are really pieces of hardware geared towards performing a single task or small set of tasks.
What are you going on about? The ACG was a fully general, stored program digital computer with a priority-driven scheduler implemented in software by Hal Laning, so what is this "no software scheduling at all" supposed to mean? And "processing the interrupts in a given sequence"? The design was asynchronous, that was precisely the novelty of the whole design compared to the state of the art.

So, I ask you, how's your making up history lately? And how's your understanding a joke lately?
I'm not making up history, I'm simply fact-checking extensively. And despite being a schizoid, I actually enjoy humor, but I do have some standards for it.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re: Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 09:17 · Score: 0

You both need to check out Poe's Law...
Re:Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 09:42 · Score: 0

> NASA invented computers to go to the Moon, everyone knows that.
More like, NASA faked inventing computers to fake going to the moon!
In fact, I've seen documented evidence that NASA was faked by the government in its entirety. Every NASA "employee" or contractor has been brainwashed into telling you they work for this fictional agency.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 09:49 · Score: 0

Never mind that the computer that landed man on the moon was no smarter than a modern toaster.
"Howdy doodly-do! Descent Engine Command Override off. Engine arm is off... the Eagle has landed...would anyone like some toast?"
Re: Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 10:19 · Score: 0

voice encryption didn't exist during WWII.
The others were all analog...
For that matter, the Norden bombsight was important. It would compute the direction and timing for when to drop.
But without the decryption computers, WHERE to drop the bombs was a bit of a problem, and WHERE to use the torpedoes would not have been known.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by colinb8 · 2014-12-26 12:32 · Score: 1
- The British treatment of Turing after WW2 was shameful and stupid.
- Turning to early "computers":
- Assuming this Wikipedia article on the Z3 is correct, in 1941 the Germans built the world's first working programmable, fully automatic digital computer, which used electromechanical relays.
- Assuming this Wikipedia article on the Colossus is correct, in 1943-44 the British built the world's first working programmable electronic digital computer, using valves (or over the Atlantic, tubes).
- Correcting the previous but one post that "The British invented computers to crack Enigma", let's try: "The British built (and maybe invented) the world's first programmable electronic digital computer to decipher the German's Lorenz Cipher, which the British called "fish". The linked article points out that German operator errors allowed the British to work out the logical structure of the cipher machine without seeing the machine itself, a "quite remarkable feat" with the initial breakthrough made by W T Tutte.
- Enigma was decrypted using Bombes which were electromechanical machines and were programmable computers, although the way they were set up had to be flexible. In 1938 the Poles had built a more specific machine Bomba to help decipher Enigma.
- The 1946 ENIAC "was similar to the Colossus [but] much faster and more flexible. It was unambiguously a Turing-complete device and could compute any problem that would fit into its memory."
- And finally(?), reading the Wikipedia article on the ENIAC we learn that the world's first completely electronic computing device was the 1942 American Atanasoff-Berry Computer, but it wasn't programmable, "being designed only to solve systems of linear equations".
Re: Jobs is Jesus by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-12-26 12:44 · Score: 1

I don't know why, in the era of instant information access, people still choose to be contrarians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by dbIII · 2014-12-26 19:59 · Score: 1

Toaster: Howdy doodly do. How's it going? I'm Talkie, Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion. Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast?
Lister: Look, I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, no one around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. No toast.
Toaster: How 'bout a muffin?
Lister: Or muffins. Or muffins. We don't like muffins around here. We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns and definitely no smegging flapjacks.
Toaster: Aah, so you're a waffle man.
Re:Jobs is Jesus by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-12-27 06:37 · Score: 1

Does Anyone Want Any Toast? - Red Dwarf - BBC
Re:Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 10:41 · Score: 0

On paper, Babbage did...as the Analytical Engine was/is a universal, programmable computer
Re:Jobs is Jesus by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 11:12 · Score: 0

Actually, most of the heavy-lifting on cracking enigma was done by the Poles, who fled to England in '39 when Poland fell. The 'Bombe' was an almost entirely Polish design.

Knuth vs. whom? Thomas Haigh? OK. by Scryer · 2014-12-26 04:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

This doesn't seem like a tough call. I have four volumes of Knuth on my shelf (just found 4A existed, so its cover is still pretty fresh), and I refer to them frequently. Even the oldest ones (though I did buy a fresh copy of Vol 1 after it was updated). It's my first stop when I need to start researching an algorithm, and often I don't need to go further.

OK, now Thomas Haigh. Googled him. Checked his credentials. PhD dissertation in the sociology of computer science. Umm, OK. Think I'll go analyze this algorithm some more... after I check my Knuth to see whether he's already done it for me.

idiocracy by real_b0fh · 2014-12-26 04:44 · Score: 1

i'm more worried about the dumbing down of the mankind in general.

--
"Contrary to popular belief, UNIX is user friendly. It just happens to be selective on who it makes friendship with"

Re:idiocracy by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 05:21 · Score: 0

... particularly the segment of mankind posting on Slashdot ...

Re:Knuth vs. whom? Thomas Haigh? OK. by methano · 2014-12-26 04:44 · Score: 1

Give the poor guy a break. He's got a PhD in the sociology of computer science. He's got to do something with that degree. This seems about as useful as anything you can do with a PhD in the sociology of computer science. What else is he gonna do?

Reinventing the Wheel by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 04:45 · Score: 0

The fact that the same inventions and discoveries are repeatedly made generation after generation supports D. Knuth's assertion, only this time it's in the Internet!

But wait,there's more by ripvlan · 2014-12-26 04:53 · Score: 3, Insightful

I returned to college several years ago after a 20 year hiatus (the first 6 years were my creative period). My first time around I studied what might be called pure Computer Science. A lot has happened in the industry after 20 years and I very much enjoyed conversations in class - esp with the perspective of the younger generation. I found it fascinating how many kids of today hoped to enter the gaming industry (my generation - Zork was popular when I was a kid and Myst was a breakout success on a new level). Kids today see blockbuster gaming as an almost make it rich experience - plus a "real world" job that sounds like fun.

But more interesting was the concepts of Computer Engineering vs Computer Science. What is Science vs Engineering? Are software "engineers" really scientists? Do they need to learn all this sciencey stuff in order to enter the business school? I attended a large semi-well-known University. Back in the '80s the CS department was "owned" by the school of business. Programming computers was thought to be the money maker - only business really used them with a strong overlap into engineering because computers were really big calculators. However it was a real CS curriculum with only 1 class for business majors. Fast forward a dozen years and CS is now part of the Engineering school (with Business on its own). The "kids" wondered why they needed to study Knuth et al when they were just going to be programming games. What about art? Story telling? They planned on using visual creative studio tools to create their works. Why all this science stuff? (this in a haptics class). Should a poet learn algorithms in order to operate MS-Word?

Since computers are ubiquitous they are used everywhere. I tell students to get a degree in what interests them - and learn how to use/program computers because...well..who doesn't use a computer? I used to program my TI calculator in highschool to pump out answers to physics & algebra questions (basic formulas).

Are those who program Excel Macros computer scientists? No. Computer Engineers? no. Business people solving real problems? Yes/maybe. The land is now wider. Many people don't care about the details of landing a man on the moon - but they like it when the velcro strap on their shoes holds properly. They receive entertainment via the Discovery Channel and get the dumbed down edition of all things "science."

When creating entertainment - it needs to be relatable to your target audience. The down and dirty details and technicalities interest only a few of us. My wife's eyes glaze over when I talk about some cool thing I'm working on. Retell it as saving the world and improving quality - she gets it (only to politely say I should go play with the kids -- but at least she was listening to that version of events).

I think that the dumbing down of history is ... well.. history. There was this thing called World War 2. The details I learned in grade school - lots of details. Each battle, names of important individuals. Today - lots of history has happened in the meantime. WW2 is now a bit dumbed down - still an important subject - but students still only have 8 grades in school with more material to cover.

My brain melts when I watch the Discovery Channel. I'm probably not the target audience. The details of historical science probably interest me. The history of Computing needs to be told like "The Social Network."

Re:But wait,there's more by ledow · 2014-12-26 06:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's even simpler than that.
Computers are a tool. That's what they were designed to be, that's what they are. You can use them, or not.
Computer science isn't about using a tool. It's about creating a tool that's useful, and enhancing existing tools.
Every idiot can pick up a hammer and bash a nail it. Not everyone could forge a hammer-head, wedge it strong enough into well-prepared wooden handles, etc.
That you can use the tools made by others to get rich - it's undeniable. It's also very rare and down to little more than chance. And gaming is the one that attracts young minds because they are ALL users of games and games devices.
But there were a bucket of clone games before the existence of and while things like Minecraft, Angry Birds, etc. were being developed.
The programmer who wrote the map editor for Half-Life probably couldn't put a level together. But a 3D artist can take that tool and slap it together even if he doesn't really understand what a shader is. It's two entirely separate areas that people STILL confuse.
Want to play games? Go ahead. You just need a computer. Want to write games? You have to become a coder, or use the tools other coders have written for you. Want to write the tools? You have to be a coder. Working in IT in schools, I get a lot of parents tell me their kids are "good with computers" and should be in the top IT classes, etc. and what university should they go to to write games? I advise all of them against it, when they come from that angle. Because immediately my first question is Have you ever written one? No. Then find another career path. Or go away, write one, come back in six months and ask me again.
The parents get miffed, but they are the ones that have come to me for the advice. And yet, the ones who COULD make it in computer science, they don't need to ask. They know where they're heading. They can knock up something in an afternoon or tell you how to go about it.
Using the tools can be a skill. I wouldn't want to be up on an oil rig handling some specialist device to build the platform, and it probably takes years of on-the-job and other training to do it properly and safely. But the guy who designed it? You'll probably never see him. If he turns up on the oil rig, it's in a hardhat and business suit to look at the job, and then he's gone.
Everyone can use a basic tool. Some can use a complex tool skilfully. Others can design and make the tools in the first place. It applies to all walks of life and all careers, though, not just IT.
You can no-doubt drive a car. But you'll never win a rally no matter how good you think you are. And though you might be able to cobble together parts to make something that moves, to build and design the car to similar specifications from nothing takes decades of experience and a high level of skill.
You can no-doubt browse the web on your computer. But you'll never run your own network effectively. And though you can cobble together parts to make something that works, to build and design the chips, the protocols, the electrical specifications, etc. takes decades of experience and a high level of skill.
You can no-doubt play some kind of instrument. But you'll never be a concert performed. And though you can cobble together parts to make something that makes a good sound, to build and design and PLAY the instruments properly takes decades of experience and a high level of skill.
You can no-doubt draw. But you'll never be an artist. And though you can cobble together parts to make something that looks good, to knock up a work of art takes decades of experience and a high level of skill.
We just need to separate the idea in people's heads. Using a computer is different to "being good" with a computer. which is different to "knowing" about the computer, which is different to programming the computer, which is different to designing the computer.
The deeper you go, the more skill and knowledge you need.
Wor
Re:But wait,there's more by phantomfive · 2014-12-26 14:59 · Score: 1

Computers are a tool. That's what they were designed to be, that's what they are. You can use them, or not. Computer science isn't about using a tool. It's about creating a tool that's useful, and enhancing existing tools.
Well said.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:But wait,there's more by dbIII · 2014-12-26 20:04 · Score: 1

My brain melts when I watch the Discovery Channel
Offtopic, but I decided to watch a "documentary" made by those guys on Charles Manson. They made him look like some evil genius instead of some loser that tried to kill people out of spite when things went wrong with his music career, got the wrong ones and was caught by Park Rangers for vandalism.

They're asking for documentation. by medv4380 · 2014-12-26 05:03 · Score: 1

Sorry, but when has anyone in the field been "good" at documentation? I'd say the best "history" we got is probably just to pull all the comments off of the Linux code, or the dev groups, but that wouldn't be safe for work. If someone were to look at the comments in any major program you'd probably come to the conclusion that we're all mental patients, and criminals being hired out of some asylum. Best to leave the history as Lovelace, then Tuning, and then nothing, but Chaos.

Re:They're asking for documentation. by phantomfive · 2014-12-26 17:56 · Score: 1

Sorry, but when has anyone in the field been "good" at documentation?
Knuth himself, ever since he wrote WEB for literate programming.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-12-26 05:03 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It Really Does Feel Like We're Going Backward by Greyfox · 2014-12-26 05:04 · Score: 2

Since the mid 2000s I feel like I've been seeing a lot more BFI solutions, BAD BFI solutions, than I did back in the '90's. I guess back then you had to use some finessee in your programming to get the performance you needed out of the system. Either that or I'm working with more bad developers lately. I suppose that's also possible.

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Re:It Really Does Feel Like We're Going Backward by plopez · 2014-12-26 10:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Even worse. I have seen both hierarchical and network databases re-invented.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

it's everywhere by Virtucon · 2014-12-26 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

we've raised at least two generations of self obsessed, no attention-span kids who want instant gratification. Retards like Justin Bieber who today tweets that he bought a new plane. As the later generations grow into the workforce and into fields like journalism, history and computer science it's no small wonder they want to reduce everything down to one liners or soundbites. Pick your field because these kids started with censored cartoons and wound up with Sponge Bob. Shit, even the news is now brokered into short paragraphs that just say "this shit happened now onto the next.."

Screw that! Yeah I'm getting older so get the fuck off my lawn!

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Re:it's everywhere by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-12-26 05:50 · Score: 1

we've raised at least two generations of self obsessed, no attention-span kids who want instant gratification.
As a Gen X'er, I blame the Baby Boom generation for today's mess. It'll get worst as this sorry lot retires and discovers that life doesn't owe them squat.
Re:it's everywhere by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 08:30 · Score: 0

" As the later generations grow into the workforce and into fields like journalism, history and computer science it's no small wonder they want to reduce everything down to one liners or soundbites."
It's called trying to do too much, the human body is not a machine. We live in a factory like society with a body that did not evolve to be in it. Western society has performed the greatest experiment on mankind in human history lets not forget.
Re:it's everywhere by loufoque · 2014-12-26 10:30 · Score: 1

If I bought a place, I'm pretty sure I would at least send a little word about it to my friends and family . That would be a major life event.

Why the piss poor state of computer science? by Viol8 · 2014-12-26 05:43 · Score: 1

Look no further than the web "development" industry which seems to be all the media and colleges can conceive of programming entailing. It generally employs people who've never even opened a half decent computer science book, never mind read one. More often than not they've done some irrelevant degree or qualification (social "science", graphics design, whatever) that just about proves they can walk upright and breath through their noses at the same time, and somehow they manage to end up "coding" HTML and eventually javascript.

And no , I'm not exaggerating.

Re:Why the piss poor state of computer science? by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-12-26 06:06 · Score: 1

I have a two-year A.S. degree in computer programming, which required one web "development" course in HTML. Since this was an online course with no hard deadlines, I waited until the very last day to complete all the assignments in six hours before taking the final exam. Having taught myself HTML with a text editor, it was a breeze to ace the exam. My only complaint was that all classes were taught in Java since the school couldn't afford to renew the Microsoft site license for Visual Studio. The Linux instructor added some C/C++ programming to the side. The assembly language class got cancelled for not having enough students.
Oh, well. I can't complain too much. Uncle Sam picked up the tab with a $3,000 tax credit that paid for my second associate degree.

History by Skiron · 2014-12-26 05:49 · Score: 1

History is what the winners make it. So what to believe and who to believe is irrelevant - what you need to know if you was _there_ and saw it happen - that is where real history comes from.

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by Dracos · 2014-12-26 05:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

there are indeed no good technical histories of computer science, and little prospect of any.

I see the posthumous reactions to Steve Jobs and Dennis Ritchie as indicators that Knuth is absolutely right. Jobs, who was essentially just a marketing asshole, gets every manner of fanfare commemorating his "world-changing" achievements. Ritchie on the other hand is almost completely ignored in the media, even though he is one of the giants upon whose shoulders Jobs undeservingly stood.

I bet anyone here would agree that co-authoring UNIX is a far more important event than being the iPod/iPhone taskmaster.

Re:You are not worthy of using a computer! by __aaclcg7560 · 2014-12-26 06:12 · Score: 1

I can't tell you how many times as a help desk technician I've told "superior computer scientist" fresh out of college to press the power button to turn on the PC. Theoretical knowledge doesn't help if you don't know how a PC works.

Fuzzball definitions by Tablizer · 2014-12-26 06:13 · Score: 1

Nobody has defined "computer science" in a clear way, at least not with any kind of consensus behind it.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:Fuzzball definitions by loonycyborg · 2014-12-26 07:52 · Score: 1

Entire field is a bit young and I always thought that 'computer science' is a bit awkward term. But IME everyone agrees that it's study of algorithms and their implementation in computing devices. It's basically applied math.
Re:Fuzzball definitions by tlhIngan · 2014-12-26 18:25 · Score: 2

Entire field is a bit young and I always thought that 'computer science' is a bit awkward term. But IME everyone agrees that it's study of algorithms and their implementation in computing devices. It's basically applied math.
It's a more misunderstanding of science and engineering. Computer science is like other sciences - biology, physics, chemistry, etc. They're concerned about studying the theory of their branch of science, so for computer science, it's about computability - can you do something? And in what kind of time/space constraints?
But you don't ask a biologist to heal you, or a physicist to build you a bridge, or a chemist to manufacture gasoline. So you shouldn't ask a computer scientist to write you an app. Engineering is the application of science - and in more than a few places, the engineering degree is marked as applied science.
The computer engineer takes the research done by computer scientists and applies it with standard engineering compromises to produce something. Most people who do "computer science" actually do "computer engineering".
Want to see the differences illustrated more clearly? Try comparing the periodicals produced by computer science groups like the ACM, versus those by engineering groups like the IEEE.
Re:Fuzzball definitions by loonycyborg · 2014-12-27 03:33 · Score: 1

But purely theoretic discipline shouldn't include word 'computer' since it's actual physical device. Design of actual physical devices is domain of engineering. That's why I think it's awkward. Theoretical part is covered by disciplines like informatics, cybernetics and algorithmic complexity theory. I'm not sure if we even need an umbrella term for them. Many other disciplines are used in design of computing devices, those that I named appeared in response to demands of design of computing devices historically, there's nothing else special about them.
Re:Fuzzball definitions by Tablizer · 2014-12-30 07:31 · Score: 1

can you do something? And in what kind of time/space constraints?
But the practical bottleneck is usually human (coder) grokking, not direct physics. And the human mind is poorly understood. It's a field thus closer to psychology than chemistry. Some want "Computer Science" to shy away from mind-centric issues; which would keep it "pure", but probably less useful as a tradeoff.

--
Table-ized A.I.

The Obfuscation of Easy Computer Science by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 06:20 · Score: 0

I've always seen Knuth as the ultimate obfuscator of even the simplest element of computer science. He writes books that use a made-up assembler syntax that no one knows. I tried to read one of his books once and gave up quickly. Sure, he gave us TeX (made usable by LaTeX), but the way he teaches computer science through his books would discourage even the most avid and self-motivated student.

Re:The Obfuscation of Easy Computer Science by twistedcubic · 2014-12-26 06:43 · Score: 1

I think Knuth's "made-up" assembly code looks generic to anyone who knows any assembler at all. I first saw assembly language in a Commodore 128 book decade ago, and reading the first few pages allowed me the grasp the big picture for Knuth's MIX language.

And I think you're incorrect about TeX vs LaTeX. Try to write your resume in LaTeX. TeX takes the pain out of LaTeX when you want to exercise good taste.
Re:The Obfuscation of Easy Computer Science by phantomfive · 2014-12-26 15:02 · Score: 1

TeX takes the pain out of LaTeX when you want to exercise good taste.
Really? How do you go about learning Tex? I didn't know anyone did that.......

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:The Obfuscation of Easy Computer Science by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 17:42 · Score: 0

Can't do, must play Candy Crush Saga while coding.
Re:The Obfuscation of Easy Computer Science by ChrisMaple · 2014-12-27 14:33 · Score: 1

The ability to turn Knuth's text into a working program is very much an individual thing. I've known people who look at Knuth's writing, say "It's easy", and write the necessary code. I look at Knuth's text, almost get the idea, and then have to find another person's writing to turn out code. Knuth just doesn't click for me.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by beelsebob · 2014-12-26 06:35 · Score: 1

Yep, the whole article is basically "we couldn't make any money if we actually wrote history about the thing you're interested in, so... tough tits"

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 06:46 · Score: 1

Jobs, who was essentially just a marketing asshole

I don't want to read your history books. You're doing exactly the thing the article is complaining about.

Agreed, 110% & why... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 06:53 · Score: 0

I pointed out THAT VERY THING vs. a "ne'er-do-well" mere admin/tech vs. his very STUPID blunders vs. myself today (& I have before on /. as well in the past) http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

* FACT: The difference in skills between MERE techies/admins & the guys that build tools for them to merely USE, in programmers? HUGE...

APK

P.S.=> Now - You *may* NOT like it, but it's truth, that most "Admins/Techs" are USERS WITH A BETTER PASSWORD only & at most/best, since ALL THEY DO, is use tools guys like myself build FOR THEM TO "USE" Passing it off like they "know something"? Please, lol!

(Programmer-analyst/software-engineer by trade since 1994, & yes, techie/network admin in that SAME timeframe, professionally, & as an MIS/IS/IT coder)

Yes: I had to BE both a network admin, full rights, + a coder as well, just to do my job 99/100 times in the first place...

(Thus, I can speak from 1st hand experience in BOTH worlds, & yes, I KNOW the BIG difference here - it *IS* a huge leap of difference in skills to be a coder, vs. a mere user, by far)... apk

Re:Agreed, 110% & why... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 12:33 · Score: 0

You're the Jayant Patel of programming. FOAD.

The physics does NOT define Computer Science by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 06:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The physics does NOT define Computer Science. Computer Science has nothing that depends on transistors, or tubes, or levers and gears.

Computers can be designed and built, and computing performed, at many different levels of physical abstraction.

You can do computer science all on paper for fucks sake.

Ever heard of this guy called Alan Turing?

Knuth is right, the ignorance, even among technical people, is astounding

Re:The physics does NOT define Computer Science by papamicd · 2014-12-27 03:13 · Score: 1

Not to mention the lack of humor.
Re:The physics does NOT define Computer Science by Anubis+IV · 2014-12-28 17:50 · Score: 1

Because addressing problems like solvability, computational complexity, or even how one goes about simply defining a problem are all mental masturbation? Come on. Those spill over into mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and numerous other fields, providing immeasurable utility to the practitioners in them and those who benefit from their research and work.
You've acknowledged that "Computer Science" is more than just the study of the physical aspects of modern computing, and you've also managed to avoid the common mistake of conflating programming for computer science, but what you've failed to apprehend is that computer science isn't merely "how computers operate". It's much more than that. That subject is merely one small aspect of what makes the field what it is.

Many fields face this problem by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 07:04 · Score: 0

New kids fresh out of college reinvent things done before them and since they don't have the history, rather than stand on the shoulders of those that came before them, they step on their toes.

Non-mobile version of the article by mrflash818 · 2014-12-26 07:06 · Score: 1

Was easier for me to read.

http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/...

--
Uh, Linux geek since 1999.

Re:Non-mobile version of the article by donaldm · 2014-12-26 15:09 · Score: 1
Was easier for me to read.

http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/...
The article would be a less onerous read if the web designer had a basic understanding of typesetting. I will give him a hint.
1. Use a serif font. Sans serif fonts are ok for captions not sentences.
2. Make your writing black on white since it's easier to read. Not grey on white
3. Have white space margins to the left and right of your web page. Again easier to read.
4. The PDF and Digital copies are ok but a little thought could make them much more readable. As an example do one column or if you really need columns then two. Having three columns smacks of trying to be "arty" or "newspaperish" and not in a good way.
To me it appears that the writer has gone out of his way to make the article difficult to read. However I do find the article an interesting read.
--
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Re:Non-mobile version of the article by PatPending · 2014-12-26 17:01 · Score: 1

This will take care of your first two suggestions:
Right click on page; From pop-up menu choose Web Developer -> CSS -> Disable Styles -> Disable All Styles.
(YMMV may vary depending on your browser and your installed extensions.)
An alternative is to edit their CSS to address the first three of your points.
My point is: there are plenty of tools you can use to make web pages appear how you would like them to appear, such as: browser extensions; custom style sheets (e.g., Firefox's userContent.css); and GreaseMonkey.

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)

Googlers More Gaga for Lady Gaga Than Knuth by theodp · 2014-12-26 07:06 · Score: 1

Googlers Go Gaga for Lady Gaga, Not So Much for Knuth

Re:Googlers More Gaga for Lady Gaga Than Knuth by loufoque · 2014-12-26 10:33 · Score: 1

Gaga comes, the audience is mostly women.
Knuth comes, the audience is mostly men.
Clearly, Google's pro-woman hiring strategy is not having the desired effects.

The Machine That Changed The World by xororand · 2014-12-26 07:07 · Score: 1

There's a gem of a documentary about the history of computing before the web.

The Machine That Changed the World is the longest, most comprehensive documentary about the history of computing ever produced.
It's a whirlwind tour of computing before the Web, with brilliant archival footage and interviews with key players — several of whom passed away since the filming.

Episode 1 featured Interviews with, including but not limited to:
Paul Ceruzzi (computer historian), Doron Swade (London Science Museum), Konrad Zuse (inventor of the first functional computer and high-level programming language, died in 1995), Kay Mauchly Antonelli (human computer in WWII and ENIAC programmer, died in 2006), Herman Goldstine (ENIAC developer, died in 2004), J. Presper Eckert (co-inventor of ENIAC, died in 1995), Maurice Wilkes (inventor of EDSAC), Donald Michie (Codebreaker at Bletchley Park)

http://waxy.org/2008/06/the_ma...
Torrent (H.264): http://waxy.org/bt/seed/The%20...

Re:The Machine That Changed The World by xororand · 2014-12-26 07:11 · Score: 1

P.S. if the BitTorrent tracker doesn't work, edit the Torrent and use udp://open.demonii.com:1337

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2014-12-26 07:44 · Score: 3, Funny

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Queer theory. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 08:02 · Score: 0

These days computer history, and perhaps all history, is only considered interesting if it can be interpreted through the lens of queer theory. No doubt, there are many university courses devoted to Alan Turing.

Ironic coming from ACM by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 08:14 · Score: 0

They're probably the single biggest party responsible for dumbing down CS education on the planet. Seriously, look at how much of Communications is devoted to pedagogy (instead of practice) and making that pedagogy broadly approachable. OF COURSE students won't learn anything about CS or programming if you replace their CS/programming courses with drag & drop icon workflows.

Re: Ironic coming from ACM by dsgrntlxmply · 2014-12-26 18:13 · Score: 1

I quit ACM years back when CACM went from a typographically elegant and content relevant general survey, to a ragged-right ugly pile of pedagogical hand wringing. Whether I am being fair in blaming P.J. Denning for this is worth arguing, but I recall its happening on his watch.

There is a CS dumbing down going on by luis_a_espinal · 2014-12-26 08:49 · Score: 1

Donald Knuth Worried About the "Dumbing Down" of Computer Science History

Whether CS education is appropriate to all people who do computed-assisted technical work is very irrelevant to me since practical forces in real life simply solve that issue.

The problem I care about is a problem I seen in CS for real. I've met quite a few CS grads who don't know who Knuth, Lamport, Liskov, Hoare Tarjan, o Dijkstra are.

If you (the generic CS grad) do not know who they are, how the hell do you know about basic CS things like routing algorithms, pre and post conditions, data structures, you know, the very basic shit that is supposed to be the bread and butter of CS????

It is ok not to know these things and these people if you are a Computer Engineer, MIS or Network/Telecomm engineer (to a degree dependent on what your job expects from you.)

But if you are Computer Scientist, my God, this is like hiring an Electrical Engineer who doesn't know who Maxwell was. It does not inspire a lot of confidence, does it?

Re:There is a CS dumbing down going on by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 10:44 · Score: 0

I can teach you all of those basic algorithms without naming that core set of scientists.
It's pretty easy. They themselves would tell you that the algorithms they developed stand alone without their names attached.
It's quite responsible to name the known inventors of those algorithms but its not essential to learning them.
If you talk to the core group you listed you will likely discover the names of a host of soviet mathematicians that they based their work on.
They are important but not knowing them does not mean you have not learned the core items in Computer Science.
As time goes on the algorithms will stay but their names will be forgotten. Tis the nature of history.

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 09:08 · Score: 0

Why marketing assholes win:

"I use my iPhone all the time, but UNIX? Wasn't that featured in Jurassic Park for a few seconds? What? It's what runs most of the Internet, my Mac and my Droid phone? Pff. It probably just stole everything from Windows. Now THAT name I know."

Don't do what they did to math by EmperorOfCanada · 2014-12-26 09:39 · Score: 0

Every bloody math book blah blahs about the great figures of math and I am sure that I have heard about the story of Gauss summing 1 to 100 in grade school 5050 times. I have pretty much zero interest who figured out the for loop, and pretty much zero interest in holding Knuth as some kind of Euler and forcing generations of programmers to learn even how to pronounce his name. Much of computer science happened because it was ready to happen.

Even in science many people were just doing the right work in the right area at the right time in history; while others truly made massive leaps such as Maxwell. It is just stupid to waste a single brain cell to learn who discovered Argon simply because he was a scientist at the time that everyone was in a race to fill in all the elements on the periodic table.

I have long thought that this historical crap was taught as a combination of a desire for immortality combined with pandering to the stupid who can learn history more easily than the paradigm in question.

It would be like naming the 100 meter dash the Miller-Crombit run because Miller-Crombit were tied in the first 100 meter dash held in the Olympics.

Re:Don't do what they did to math by Aikiplayer · 2014-12-26 10:59 · Score: 1

Knuth did a nice job of articulating why he wants to look at the history of things at the beginning of the video. Those reasons might not resonate with you but he does have definite reasons for wanting technical histories (not social histories which pander to "the stupid") to be written.

Not unique to computer science by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 10:14 · Score: 0

I think this problem is not limited to the history of computer science. The article describes that in the beginning, people like Knuth used to write about the history of computer science and that at some point, actual historians started writing it. This might improve the history, but neccesarily makes them less technical. The exact same effect can be observed in physics. Research into the history and philosophy of physics used to be done by people trained as theoretician or experimentalists. Usually when they were close to retirement. At some point, research into the history and philosophy of physics began to be seen as an actual field of physics and people began to study the history and philosophy full time, as opposed to it being a side project. At our university, since about 25 years, you can actually study the
history and philosophy of physics. You can actually get a PhD in the subject without ever having done actual research in theoretical or experimental physics.

This development has gone so far that professors lecturing about the foundations of quantum mechanics are still talking about the consequences of thought experiments, without knowing that the experiments have actually been carried out!

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by plopez · 2014-12-26 10:16 · Score: 2

" far more important event than being the iPod/iPhone taskmaster"

I am actually going to argue that point with you. From an applications POV; IPods, IPads, iPhones, and OS X took the capabilities of Unix, and a host of other technologies, and leveraged them into something with a huge impact on social order, business, art, and science. Having Unix at the ready was important. But creating those products took the power of Unix into a whole new realm.

By analogy, knowing 2 Ca3SiO5 + 7 H2O ---> 3 CaO.2SiO2.4H2O + 3 Ca(OH)2 + 173.6kJ is important.

Taking that and using it to create a transcontinental highway system is also very important.

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

Re:The Art History of Computer Programming by plopez · 2014-12-26 10:19 · Score: 1

But the question is, "Can he run an espresso machine?" :)

--
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+

Re:Knuth vs. whom? Thomas Haigh? OK. by loufoque · 2014-12-26 10:24 · Score: 2

Anyone who venerates TAoCP like you do is a drone formatted by the establishment, an elitist, or both.

Retardation boosted by Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 12:01 · Score: 0

I do concur with what you have said, however, I need to add that current generation (and the several generations that follow) will have their retardation level boosted by Political Correctness

Censorship is the IN thing to do, and will be the IN to do for generations to come. Whatever that does not conform to the strict Political Correctness guideline will be mercilessly suppressed, and those who chose to ignore the Political Correctness movement will be labeled as "haters" for whatever they say will be called "hate speech" and whatever they do will be identified as "hateful act"

But if we do some trace back, Political Correctness started with the Baby Boomers. Yes, it was the Baby Boomers who allowed that motherfucking thing to run rampant

So in other words, the future generations are being dumbed down thanks to the fucking asshats from the Baby Boomer generations

Re:Retardation boosted by Political Correctness by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 13:55 · Score: 0

Did your mommy not nurse you long enough?

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-26 12:32 · Score: 0

In your analogy I picture Steve Jobs as something like Ronald McDonald in that sense I can get behind your analogy. All joking aside Steve Jobs might be the most famous Unix marketing guy ever - well, so far. If that makes Knuth feel socially awkward it can only be a testament to his genius. He has put off social disappointment at the level of "You mean, I'm smart and smart isn't popular?" until past his retirement age. That is a man who took the "I'm thinking about something" attitude ball and ran through the end zone on his way to Australia.

"If you want to run fast, run alone. If you want to run far, run together." - African Proverb

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by phantomfive · 2014-12-26 17:53 · Score: 1

Yep, the whole article is basically "we couldn't make any money if we actually wrote history about the thing you're interested in, so... tough tits"

Which isn't true......or rather, maybe they couldn't, but a more competent writer surely could.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by jelizondo · 2014-12-26 18:05 · Score: 1

You are saying Jobs = Apple, which is not true. Jobs without Wozniak and thousands of other engineers and scientists, would have a been a sode-pop seller... In other words, he created nothing and took credit for the creations of other people. Google Jobs' insistence of having his name on every Apple patent...

Now, Ritchie, he co-authored Unix. He did not manage the creation of Unix. And he created the programming language C. Personal accomplishments.

See the difference?

--
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey

Jobs is the Son of Gates by DanielOom · 2014-12-27 09:51 · Score: 1

Steve Reich invented minimal music. Steve Jobs just invented the second record company called Apple (the first one being invented by The Beatles - not anywhere as historical as Sun records). Alan Turing invented the Turing Machine - after Conrad Zuse had built a working computer. Al Bell is credited with the telephone. Innovation was patented by the biblical author of Ecclesiastes.

It's the singer, not the song [Mick Jagger] by DanielOom · 2014-12-27 10:04 · Score: 1

Frankly, I hardly know who Knuth, Lamport, Liskov, Hoare, Tarjan, Dijkstra or Maxwell are or were. CS grads should know their theories. Donald Knuth belongs to a small club who study the lives of the inventors along with their inventions.

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-27 13:57 · Score: 0

> he created nothing and took credit for the creations of other people

He created companies. And before you dismiss that, consider that for every company successfully marketing something made by engineers, there are probably 20 engineers with an invention that never sees the light of day... often because they try to build a business around it by themselves.

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by ChrisMaple · 2014-12-27 14:01 · Score: 1

Apparently, Jobs was a bullying perfectionist. Without him, the excellent products Apple created would not have existed anywhere. Whether he damaged people's lives in the process is something I don't know, but there are bosses out there with his personality and practices that have left behind human mental carnage.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Mathematics is a language. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-28 10:59 · Score: 0

Mathematics is a language. So all those disciplines/issues do in fact apply to Mathematics just as much as to CS.

Which should be no surprise since CS is a subset of Mathematics.

There is just no way around this. The problem is that so few people study mathematics as a discipline (as opposed to a tool) and therefore few people are aware of, let alone think about how the issues you mention apply to mathematics.

Re:Mathematics is a language. by TuringTest · 2015-01-05 11:06 · Score: 1

Mathematics is a language, but not a natural one. The parts of those sciences dedicated to make programming less mind-bending are not a subset of maths, yet they're still CS. There are parts of computer science which are math, not all of it.

--
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.

Re:False Summary - Haigh Agrees with Knuth's Thesi by Rakarra · 2014-12-28 21:31 · Score: 1

You are saying Jobs = Apple, which is not true.

Perhaps, but Apple without Jobs in the 80s and 90s was not a pretty sight. Apple right now is stagnating, riding upon past accomplishments.

Re:Knuth vs. whom? Thomas Haigh? OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 05:54 · Score: 0

Anyone who venerates TAoCP like you do is a drone formatted by the establishment, an elitist, or both.

It is actually the opposite. The establishment is dedicated to "social science" at the expense of:

art
truth
beauty
integrity
everything else

Suffice to say, "social science" is only useful insofar as studying marketing may help you not be susceptible to bullshit.

Now, if you want to argue TAoCP is not "art" and actually is brainwashing/conditioning from "the establishment" I'd love to hear that argument. But the current "establishment" is devoted to "social science" and conditioning people into compliance.

The "establishment" is not out making "art" except to brainwash (educate) people. Again, tell us how "TAoCP" is "the establishment" instead of an ad hominem.

That you think an ad hominem with no actual argument is relevant is just another sign of the dumbing down. Prove you are not a tool, prove you are not a robot.

Disdain for "elitists" is also what "drones formatted by the establishment" do. How naive and cute of you! You thought "rebellion" was nothing more than a way to control people? You thought the "establishment" does not ENJOY encouraging people to attack "elites" in order to achieve their objectives?

You have a lot to learn.

I will grant you, in some strange, foreign universe (to me...perhaps a third world country, outside the grasp of the establishment) your points may be perfectly valid and correspond to reality. Anywhere else...you are either deliberately playing dumb, trying to provoke a reaction, just pushing people's buttons for no reason except you enjoy it.......or a helplessly confused drone yourself. Not really many other options......"art" is simply NOT part of "the establishment" and certainly something as dry and BORING (to most) of works as TAoCP it is hard to see how "the establishment" would gain anything......what, they target 1% of the population to do their bidding?

Your premise does not add up, makes no sense. Prove your case. Did you go to "art" school your whole life, from birth to adulthood, against your will?

In the modern world, most anywhere, science and technology rules all, people are just cogs to be programmed for compliance and submission of pre-determiend objectives...and "art" is the same it has always been....not "productive" and unworthy of consideration except as a "hobby" ........... are you jealous Knuth turned his "art" into $ and you could not? Are you mad you have to attend a day job while Knuth can practice "art" for a living?

Seriously, what are you yapping about?

Re:Knuth vs. whom? Thomas Haigh? OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 06:00 · Score: 0

You thought "rebellion" was nothing more than a way to control people?

correction: You thought "rebellion" was anything more than a way to control people?

What are you saying, the "establishment" tricked Knuth into creating "art" as part of some evil plan?

Again, TAoCP is 1% on the radar of the population of ANYWHERE, probably even amongst Computer Science majors.

Just not effective...........unless computer science people have some other skills that makes them more effective/compliant than the general population, subverting a computer science book is simply......not going to help "the establishment" very much.

Assembly language, is in fact, not in "the establishments" interest. If TAoCP was about the "establishment" it would be x86-only, and about running algorithms on Windows (or insert your favorite monopolist here).

TAoCP is actually very anti-establishment insofar as it is language-neutral and machine-neutral....algorithms + math + perhaps a code implementation for MIX / MMIX. The "establishment" would tell you MS invented "windows" and graphics and networking and the internet and the PC...

Do you come from a family of computer scientists cramming TAoCP down your throat? Really, some book 1% of the population has even heard of, is the "establishment" ? What strange world are you from?

Are your mom and dad professors, forcing you into CS so you get a good "career" ?

Re:Knuth vs. whom? Thomas Haigh? OK. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-29 06:08 · Score: 0

Anyone who venerates TAoCP like you do is a drone formatted by the establishment, an elitist, or both.

For crying out loud, the TAoCP talks about how trinary computers are more efficient price-wise (assuming a world where they were produced as much as binary computers, an existing and equal level of existing software already out there, etc.).....unless you are from Russia and were forced to work on a real trinary computer your whole life.....TAoCP is about as anti-establishment and theoretical as you can get.....just happens to have code included too.....

Seriously, you live on another planet. What strange world is TAoCP "establishment" to you?

I agree with Mr Knuth by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-30 01:39 · Score: 0

I've worked a long time in quite a few companies dealing with Data Processing, then Information Technology. Becoming dumber is an understatement. But, this is just part of the general rush to the new dark ages.

The fundamental electronics and math of Computer Science is going the way of the slide rule. In IT, unskilled managers and execs make foolish technical decisions and the "technical" people don't even see the problem. Is is a good idea to embed location information into a customer's account number? "Gee! Why not?"

Slashdot Mirror

Donald Knuth Worried About the "Dumbing Down" of Computer Science History

149 comments