Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

cacm.acm.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 171 posts

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#71

Post by bsder »

mikewarot wrote: post #27

Unlike Medicine, many of the ideas that we had in the past were better than the commonly accepted way things are done now. Capability based security, for example was something that allowed you to run any program, with no danger to your system. It's not part of any common OS. They had it at Xerox PARC, but Steve Jobs chose not to take that part. On the other hand, the PARC focus on replicating paper was a step backwar…

> Capability based security, for example was something that allowed you to run any program, with no danger to your system. It's not part of any common OS.

Basically, haven't we "reinvented" this via "The Eternal Mainframe"? Only now it's called Amazon Web Services?

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#72

Post by Guthur »

I wonder how much this is born from what at outwardly appear very transient.

Our interfaces with computing have changed so radically and many things are legitmately obselete for the majority of us; no one is likely to reach for a punch card or a 3.5" floppy (might be a few edge cases on this one :) ).

Most of this is the facade of computing though and many of underlying fundamentals are the same but I feel that this outward appears of transiency leaves us flippant about the retrospective.

It's not a great comparison but lets look at military history, many of the tactics, and hardware remain the same for decades with design and development taking an significant portion of time. the F35 has been in development for nearly 2 decades and it's only now at the beginning of it's service life.

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#73

Post by tester34 »

jonathankoren wrote: post #11
aidenn0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No we wouldn’t. Source code is notoriously hard to read if you’re not familiar with it, and optimized source code using internal APIs is even harder. If you’re learning an algorithm, just stick to pseudocode, otherwise youre stuck with MMIX bullshit.

I disagree

I hate reading pseudocode because I do always have to wonder "what the person writting this had actually on their mind"

an actual source code is literally what's going on.

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#74

Post by ballenf »

wernercd wrote: post #49
fooker wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History is not just about time — what happened when. An equally important part is the ordering and the reasons something happened. You can know how to write simple programs in all paradigms, but fail to understand what to use when. You might have memorized a long list of algorithms but not understand the trade-offs involved in choosing one. Of course history is not the only way to understand this, but it is definitel…

Well like I said... I enjoy history. but. I've never used history to solve business problems. They are related and good to know... but I don't need to know history to flip burgers, run a business or plan my next sprint. I'm not arguing history is unimportant or good to know or even possibly useful just to have ideas of what to do - or what not to do... I'm just arguing it's importance is over-emphasized.

Just feels like you’re arguing that only short term memory matters. Have you never encountered a problem that became easy once you talked to someone with more background on the problem than you?

Why would you want to handicap yourself or your field by making it harder to “talk” to those a little bit further before you?

Your building is resting on their foundations whether you acknowledge it or not. They may have had a solution for the problem you’re facing.

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#75

Post by crististm »

wernercd wrote: post #49
fooker wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History is not just about time — what happened when. An equally important part is the ordering and the reasons something happened. You can know how to write simple programs in all paradigms, but fail to understand what to use when. You might have memorized a long list of algorithms but not understand the trade-offs involved in choosing one. Of course history is not the only way to understand this, but it is definitel…

Well like I said... I enjoy history. but. I've never used history to solve business problems. They are related and good to know... but I don't need to know history to flip burgers, run a business or plan my next sprint. I'm not arguing history is unimportant or good to know or even possibly useful just to have ideas of what to do - or what not to do... I'm just arguing it's importance is over-emphasized.

What I see is not over-emphasizing the importance of history but de-emphasizing it as a justification for present day sufficiency.

If you don't like the term, use another one. But without history you're bound to cargo cult computer science where what you have to do next is plan your sprint. Why do you need a sprint anyway? You might never know if you need a sprint any more if you don't know what problem was it supposed to fix.

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#76

Post by tremon »

andi999 wrote: post #56
mikewarot wrote: post #27

Unlike Medicine, many of the ideas that we had in the past were better than the commonly accepted way things are done now. Capability based security, for example was something that allowed you to run any program, with no danger to your system. It's not part of any common OS. They had it at Xerox PARC, but Steve Jobs chose not to take that part. On the other hand, the PARC focus on replicating paper was a step backwar…

"The limitation of a single desktop was put in place to allow children to ease into the desktop metaphor." Any source for this? I dont thinkchildren were the target customers at that time.

They didn't mean literal children I guess, but "children" in the sense of blank-slate individuals exploring a new space.

Adults can use training wheels too when first learning to ride a bike. But once they're competent, it's more expressive to ride without.

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#77

Post by tremon »

wernercd wrote: post #67
Sharlin wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP is talking about (future) researchers in particular. Still, there’s a tremendous historical myopia among practicing software engineers as well, leading us as a field to reinvent old ideas in new clothes every ten years or so.

Researchers might have more use for history... but day to day, in the field, programmers? not so much. I would think it's the difference between math researchers and accountants... You don't need to know history to balance a check book.

Programmers in the field have little use for computer science in general. You don't need to know anything about cyclomatic complexity when assembling a shiny javascript widget.

Until you do, of course. At which point it's clear you should've known about it years ago.

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#79

Post by vector_spaces »

mikewarot wrote: post #35
C4ne wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the comparison between medicine and computer science very interesting! I have never thought about it this way. Could you elaborate on how you „dig back“? Do you read old papers / books? I imagine that one would have to dig through much old stuff that just isn‘t interesting until you find something that could be really usefull (like capability based security).

Look at the recent talks by Alan Kay, Ted Nelson, Joe Armstrong on YouTube. Watch "The Mother of all Demos" by Douglass Engelbart. There is a lot of stuff online, just follow the threads. I've been pushing Capability Based Security for a decade... only in the last 6 hours did I learn that they had it at Xerox PARC, in an offhanded comment by Ted Nelson at the end of one of his videos, where he mentions the great idea…

One of my favorite talks by Joe Armstrong -- computer science, a guide for the perplexed. He talks through what he feels are some important but forgotten ideas in CS

https://youtu.be/rmueBVrLKcY

Re: Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014)

#80

Post by pattusk »

thundergolfer wrote: post #40
blt wrote: post #10

As 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 d…

A favourite quote, that appears on my Github profile: > Computing is pop culture. [...] Pop culture holds a disdain for history. Pop culture is all about identity and feeling like you're participating, It has nothing to do with cooperation, the past or the future—it's living in the present. I think the same is true of most people who write code for money. They have no idea where [their culture came from]. - Alan Kay…

This is a wonderful quote, thank you for sharing.

I particularly like how he had the insight of making the statement true only for "people who write code for money." Growing up in various computing "scenes" (open source, hacking, demoscene) in the 90's and 2000's, nobody did anything for money. And it seemed everybody had the utmost respect for the history of the scene. Demosceners were all about "old school" stuff and the old Amiga days. Hacking ezines and forums retold the tales of Captain Crunch and other legendary hackers from yore. And the open source community was still full of completely antiquated practices that some would have question but nobody would have dared to disrespect.

Only when I started programming as a job did I encounter people who, strangely, had no interest for such things. There was plenty of enthusiasm for new languages, but little for their genealogy. It really seemed odd to me and I think the lack of love for the "craft" and its history is ultimately what drove me out of industry and to academia.

Post reply on HN