Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
1–10 of 171 posts
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#2The main problem seems to be that computer scientists don't care about history. That seems a bit strange to me, since there is no lack of people to analyse the historical parts of mathematics of physics. Maybe the problem is that computer science history doesn't seem like history yet since it is relatively recent?
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#3One problem in understanding computer science history is the essentially perpetual copyright laws. It's illegal to view or share many important past programs' source code, a problem not shared by other fields. Imagine discussing literature without being allowed to read it! There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.
The rise of open source software is finally letting us view some of that software. But we may never publicly know what some past giants did.
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#4The main problem seems to be that computer scientists don't care about history. That seems a bit strange to me, since there is no lack of people to analyse the historical parts of mathematics of physics. Maybe the problem is that computer science history doesn't seem like history yet since it is relatively recent?
Because a lot of CS history are only relevant in a larger/humanities context. In terms of absolute technical value, the historical contributions are not necessarily as valuable. Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica has next to no practical use in modern day software engineering. Their existence helped induce Church and Turing to create modern computer science theory but the discrete mathematics in that book itself holds little value for your average computer scientist outside of being an intellectual exercise.
Another issue is that CS is a branch of applied math that also happens to be extremely profitable. Math operates on much larger timescales than other domains. But business and economics demands immediate attribution. McCulloch and Pitts had their Hebbian neural network almost a century ago. Kleene of the Regex fame designed his neural network in 1951 [0]. These vast timescales are quite normal for advanced mathematics. But in 2010 GPUs became cheap and the obscure theories of the pre-GOFAI age are suddenly immensely profitable. Of course the names and associations would be with their most recent implementors. The ones who actually applied and made it possible, rather than those whom dreamt it up a century ago.
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#5One problem in understanding computer science history is the essentially perpetual copyright laws. It's illegal to view or share many important past programs' source code, a problem not shared by other fields. Imagine discussing literature without being allowed to read it! There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. The rise of open source software is finally letting us view some of that software. But we may never…
Is the actual source code that important? I’m trying to think of what I’m missing. I’m personally more interested in the comments left in the code of some or those old projects than the actual code, which was probably full of bugs and a bit crufty just like the stuff we write today.
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#6The main problem seems to be that computer scientists don't care about history. That seems a bit strange to me, since there is no lack of people to analyse the historical parts of mathematics of physics. Maybe the problem is that computer science history doesn't seem like history yet since it is relatively recent?
Because a lot of CS history are only relevant in a larger/humanities context. In terms of absolute technical value, the historical contributions are not necessarily as valuable. Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica has next to no practical use in modern day software engineering. Their existence helped induce Church and Turing to create modern computer science theory but the discrete mathematics in that book…
Re first paragraph: Do you think mathematics and physics are different? It isn't like the old papers are relevant after hundreds of years, others have written the same things in more distilled and easier to read formats.
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#7One problem in understanding computer science history is the essentially perpetual copyright laws. It's illegal to view or share many important past programs' source code, a problem not shared by other fields. Imagine discussing literature without being allowed to read it! There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. The rise of open source software is finally letting us view some of that software. But we may never…
Programs source code is just as copyrighted as late 20th century literature.
However, it's not generally available (unlike late 20th century literature). If windows sold with the source code (even if you were forbidden from doing anything with it), then we would be reading windows source code in our CS classes.
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#8One problem in understanding computer science history is the essentially perpetual copyright laws. It's illegal to view or share many important past programs' source code, a problem not shared by other fields. Imagine discussing literature without being allowed to read it! There are exceptions, but they are exceptions. The rise of open source software is finally letting us view some of that software. But we may never…
Programs source code is just as copyrighted as late 20th century literature. However, it's not generally available (unlike late 20th century literature). If windows sold with the source code (even if you were forbidden from doing anything with it), then we would be reading windows source code in our CS classes.
Microsoft even had a "research kernel" they licensed out to unis, and we did read (parts of) that in CS classes. (but still of course very different than actually having the full source of real systems through history available for general study)
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a lot of CS history are only relevant in a larger/humanities context. In terms of absolute technical value, the historical contributions are not necessarily as valuable. Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica has next to no practical use in modern day software engineering. Their existence helped induce Church and Turing to create modern computer science theory but the discrete mathematics in that book…
Re first paragraph: Do you think mathematics and physics are different? It isn't like the old papers are relevant after hundreds of years, others have written the same things in more distilled and easier to read formats.
Well, most students in (contemporary) math programs don't learn to derive their axioms from Euclid (construction of naturals are usually done via Peano), their Calculus from Newton's Principia, and nor do they learn their set theory from Cantor's original papers. Instead they learn from modern textbooks that make only a passing reference to the original authors.
Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)
#10As a computer science graduate student, I am always surprised by how rarely my peers seem to know or care about the history of our field. I doubt many of them would write papers about computer science history even if the incentives were better.
I think it is somehow related to the power of computer science to change the human condition. Everyone is thinking about the future. Mathematicians also crave novelty, but I don't think they feel "my work could change the world" in the same way as CS researchers.
Learning about CS history would make us better researchers, and thus more likely to change the world, but that line of motivation is not direct enough to excite people. There is still so much low-hanging fruit that can be plucked with only shallow knowledge of the field.