(Edward G. Nilges)
10/22/2009 9:38:00 AM
On Oct 22, 3:19 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 22 Oct, 07:00, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 12, 4:31 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> > > In <xulFD$14xzqKF...@romana.davros.org>, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:
> > > > <ccc6974a-1cc2-49d8-b575-a60ae4232...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
> > > >spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >>> >But Turing invented the concept of software.
>
> > > >>> Nonsense. Ada Lovelace was writing software years before Turing
> > > >>> wrote his papers.
>
> > > >>So were people wiring plugboards. To do software without knowing it
>
> > > > If you read her writings on the stuff, it is clear she knew what she
> > > > was doing - only the word was missing.
>
> > > Here is part of a note written by Ada Augusta Lovelace. It would not
> > > have seemed terribly out of place in a 1960s tutorial guide for
> > > budding mainframe programmers:
>
> > > "These cards, however, have nothing to do with the regulation of the
> > > particular numerical data. They merely determine the operations to be
> > > effected, which operations may of course be performed on an infinite
> > > variety of particular numerical values, and do not bring out any
> > > definite numerical results unless the numerical data of the problem
> > > have been impressed on the requisite portions of the train of
> > > mechanism. In the above example, the first essential step towards an
> > > arithmetical result would be the substitution of specific numbers for
> > > n, and for the other primitive quantities which enter into the
> > > function.
>
> > > Again, let us suppose that for F we put two complete equations of the
> > > fourth degree between x and y. We must then express on the cards the
> > > law of elimination for such equations. The engine would follow out
> > > those laws, and would ultimately give the equation of one variable
> > > which results from such elimination."
>
> > > That's a tiny snippet, of course. I would not like to cross
> > > mathematical swords with this lady.
>
> > She thought math is all about numbers.
>
> If you'd actually read any of her stuff you wouldn't say that.
>
> > She (like most machine tenders
> > in the "plugboard" era of computation prior to stored programming)
>
> she wasn't a machine tender as there was no machine. And Babagges
> machines didn't have plug boards. They were mechanical!
>
> > never realized the importance of self-reflexively having the machine
> > do the work for you: this was Grace Hopper. Turing realized the
> > importance of self-reflexivity as well. John von Neumann missed it: he
> > felt that "mere" programmers <elide daft politics> were merely being lazy when they wrote software
> > tools. Lovelace and Babbage did not to my knowledge use the difference
> > engine to design the difference engine;
>
> they didn't have a working machine. Did Grace hopper use the machine
> to design the machine?
>
> > indeed, their efforts failed
> > precisely because Victorian toolsmiths used non-quantitative methods
> > to build the parts, while the machine was easy to build today using
> > CNC machine tools.
>
> the London Science Museum demonstarted that the manufacture of the
> parts was well within the capabilities of the available technology.
> If anything they were a little over engineered.
That is precisely what was NOT demonstrated by the London Science
Museum. It built the modern Difference engine with Victorian materials
but without modern computer-controlled machine tools. Its working
machine does not prove at all that Babbage could have built the
machine in the 19th century because at that date, machining to the
tolerances required was not possible because machine tools were hand-
held and hand-guided.
>
> > Indeed, at the time, the use of self-reflexivity in technology (using
> > waste steam in steam engines, using the waste products of sugar cane
> > (bagasse) to power sugar refining, was almost always the work of
> > artisans who in some cases were accused of wasting time and resources.
>
> it amazes me what you can drag your bizzare social theories into.- Hide quoted text -
No, what's amazing is how ignorant technical people can be of the
social origins of technology, or its history...if British people are
learning at their science museums that they could have produced a real
working and full-scale Difference engine, they are being taught to
ignore the fact that technology doesn't work on its own, that it
requires a skilled and respected labor force.
You might consider reading FORCES OF PRODUCTION by technical historian
David Noble now at York University, who was a Smithsonian employee
until hounded out of his job by anti-labor Republicans: Noble
described how CNC numerically controlled machine tools were
introduced. The skill of the machinists was disregarded and punk
college boys prepared programs which according to Noble produced
pieces of scrap iron at high speed. It was only when management agreed
with the labor to allow the actual machinists to program the machines
that work got done.
Babbage had, it appears, nothing but contempt for actual workers and
for this reason would not have been able to retain machinists with
enough skill to create a working Difference Engine even if they had
existed. And, if there were Victorian machinists able to fabricate
parts to the tolerances Babbage needed, they probably get quiet about
it lest their employers force them to teach others their secrets...and
lay them off without a pension.
In my direct experience and in the historical record, "geniuses" are
usually the people who understand and can steal the work of others and
present it as their own. The Difference engine was indeed Babbage's
idea in the sense that after suggesting that astronomical calculations
be done with steam, Babbage worked on the the idea. But the idea
probably occured to others.
>
> - Show quoted text -