Genuine question, would concepts of Ransom Olds, or more familiar, Henry Ford’s assembly line, be more valuable than software if not for electricity? (Random example)
Or to clarify, outside of theoretical execution? To do actual work or perform tasks, that would provide value to a lamen/normal person/small business etc?
Some of the early computers were mechanical instead of electric. I would assume they store data on punch tape much like the magic piano does to play songs. It would be to heavy for personal use, unless there was a way to make it smaller by using smaller parts.
first useful programs were knitting mills and carpet machines around 1800 - there was no conditional logic, just a long loop of effectively what were just print statements. See jacquard looms on wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom#/media/File:Jacq...
Devices like the Curta are beautiful, as a deleted comment mentioned, but how would we move past those? Distributed systems, databases (written journals?) etc? What value do these have outside electricity?
That’s my precise question, does digital === electronic? If true, how do Claude Shannon’s (numerous) contributions become relevant in the absence of electricity?
Theory is independent from practice or implementation. A logic gate is a logic gate whether you model it with wires, water channels, or whatever else. Regardless of perceived 'relevance':
>The value of knowledge is not statically predefined
This is kind of a challenge. There have been several electro-mechanical computers that were "programmable" in the modern sense. I've never heard of one that was purely mechanical. I guess Babbage's analytical engine would qualify, but it hasn't been built yet, so who knows if it would actually work?
Way past time to make one powered directly by horses. We have the tools. We have the technology.
To be honest, I had been pondering about how I personally put so much energy in learning, exploring software etc, yet it seems to depend on, at it’s core, a few other important innovations. It’s like saying I’m a speech therapist, but Darwin decides not to bring a mouth, tongue, or hands to write with. When the lights go out, is it relevant?
Well sure it is. Those dependencies you're talking about (the transistor, keyboards, screens, etc -- the things that modern computing depend on) are just the current, and I would say arbitrary, implementation of the concept of "computing".
A lot of the real early work in computing was done by George Boole, before Shannon picked up where he left off. That kind of stuff (boolean algebra, information theory) will always be relevant... (to survival in ye enden times? maybe not) and it doesn't involve electricity.
Just as I imagine that the things that you learn as a speech therapist go way deeper than just helping kids with their lisps.
It's easy to get caught up in the current fads and stay on the surface (e.g. programming languages, or frameworks) of the computing field, and maybe what you're experiencing is a kind of existential dread about the meaning of the work you're doing. But I think if you stick with it and go deep, you'll find that "computing" is a fundamental aspect of the universe.
And if the lights do go out, then maybe everything you learned while "studying computers" will be of help in figuring out how to get them back on again... Or, better yet, help you to realize that you didn't actually need the lights in the first place.
It's a curious thing, but numerical computing predates computers. One striking linguistic feature is that in computational fluid dynamics (a kind of numerical computation), a method of calculation is called "a code". Whereas, for software development, a program's specific instructions are called "code". The CFD usage wrong to me, but since they were first... maybe we were the monsters all along?
In the future, we may have cellular/biochemical computation, or quantum calculation, or calculation based on some other phenonema (neutrinos?), perhaps not yet discovered.
Meanwhile, there's a pedantic argument that all known computation is really "electrical" (including human neuron pulses).
Concepts like encapsulation can be applied to business units - when you see communication between people I see API's/Interface boundaries.
Debugging has provided me with an "introspection" capability where I can step logically through a problem and divide and conquer an issue into smaller steps.
I used the binary search algorithm to eliminate causes in a chemical system I was debugging once - people who do not know binary search would have almost certainly tried exhaustive enumeration, which is much slower and resource intensive.
System programming shows you the importance of buffers, backpressure and feedback loops, I use this to manage cash flow through my company.
Programming is actually learning to think. The "coding" aspect is just an implementation.
Once you get some serious experience programming (you get past learning all the syntax and learn a few different languages) the abstract concepts become clearer, and you can apply them anywhere
I like this reference. I recently was researching ancient military strategies and trying to link them up with or gain knowledge to apply in software. I think there is a lot to gain still from forgotten lessons.
Absolutely! The Art of War is excellent for general strategy. I've found it good as an abstract strategy book and have applied it to negotiations and business, but because it's so general it might be a bit of a stretch to get programming strategy out of it.
30 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 74.8 ms ] threadOr to clarify, outside of theoretical execution? To do actual work or perform tasks, that would provide value to a lamen/normal person/small business etc?
first real program is often attributed to Countess Ada Lovelace, in describing operations of the Babbage machine in 1843. She even had a bug in her "code". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_computer_pr...
So what you're saying is, Jacquard beat Adobe to PDF by nearly 200 years?
We did.
It just turns out digital > mechanical.
Thanks to Shannon and many others, we figured out we should 'pack more' into tinier spaces (circuits [0]), using less symbols (binary [1]).
Another such leap would require moving past current limits of physics understanding.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor#Comparison_with_vac...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69-YUSazuic&list=PLbg3ZX2pWl...
I had never thought about that. But someone has: https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-electroni...
>relevant in the absence of electricity?
Theory is independent from practice or implementation. A logic gate is a logic gate whether you model it with wires, water channels, or whatever else. Regardless of perceived 'relevance':
>The value of knowledge is not statically predefined
Way past time to make one powered directly by horses. We have the tools. We have the technology.
If having the operator manually re-configure parts counts as programming, then we've probably already achieved purely mechanical value.
If we set the bar a little higher to a bonafide Turing machine, then I think you've thrown down the gauntlet.
Only things I see left in the "relevant" column by then would be how painlessly you get to go and your relationship with Jesus Christ.
A lot of the real early work in computing was done by George Boole, before Shannon picked up where he left off. That kind of stuff (boolean algebra, information theory) will always be relevant... (to survival in ye enden times? maybe not) and it doesn't involve electricity.
Just as I imagine that the things that you learn as a speech therapist go way deeper than just helping kids with their lisps.
It's easy to get caught up in the current fads and stay on the surface (e.g. programming languages, or frameworks) of the computing field, and maybe what you're experiencing is a kind of existential dread about the meaning of the work you're doing. But I think if you stick with it and go deep, you'll find that "computing" is a fundamental aspect of the universe.
And if the lights do go out, then maybe everything you learned while "studying computers" will be of help in figuring out how to get them back on again... Or, better yet, help you to realize that you didn't actually need the lights in the first place.
It was a job title for numerical calculation.
It's a curious thing, but numerical computing predates computers. One striking linguistic feature is that in computational fluid dynamics (a kind of numerical computation), a method of calculation is called "a code". Whereas, for software development, a program's specific instructions are called "code". The CFD usage wrong to me, but since they were first... maybe we were the monsters all along?
In the future, we may have cellular/biochemical computation, or quantum calculation, or calculation based on some other phenonema (neutrinos?), perhaps not yet discovered.
Meanwhile, there's a pedantic argument that all known computation is really "electrical" (including human neuron pulses).
Concepts like encapsulation can be applied to business units - when you see communication between people I see API's/Interface boundaries.
Debugging has provided me with an "introspection" capability where I can step logically through a problem and divide and conquer an issue into smaller steps.
I used the binary search algorithm to eliminate causes in a chemical system I was debugging once - people who do not know binary search would have almost certainly tried exhaustive enumeration, which is much slower and resource intensive.
System programming shows you the importance of buffers, backpressure and feedback loops, I use this to manage cash flow through my company.
Programming is actually learning to think. The "coding" aspect is just an implementation.
Once you get some serious experience programming (you get past learning all the syntax and learn a few different languages) the abstract concepts become clearer, and you can apply them anywhere