Let's Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science (2014) • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by dalbasal » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 12:05 PM UTC

svat wrote: post #24

To be clear about the "(2014)", although Knuth gave this talk in 2014, this transcript of the talk is from the upcoming (February 2021) issue of Communications of the ACM. The whole sequence of articles/talks is interesting: - (2007, Martin Campbell-Kelly), "The History of the History of Software" (DOI: 10.1109/MAHC.2007.4407444 ) — the trigger for what follows. - (2014, Donald Knuth): "Let's Not Dumb Down the Histor…

Interesting.

I think it's a valid point/pursuit but somewhat sisyphean. Technical is harder to follow. That means fewer people will read it, even people who do have the skill to. Publishing is a medium, not entirely unlike HN or pop science books and has a media dynamic. I think history of X tends to go "accessible" in every field, with the counterexamples (eg mathematics) being exceptions. A HN article with lots of code is harder to read, digest and comment than an article about the business/societal implications of facebook's new policy on squirrels. Even people who do read the former, can read more of the latter more easily... so they do.

Also, generalities tend to be more evocative than specifics. If there is a message to the "story" about small teams, outsiders, or other cultural element... that's engaging. Technical is necessarily specific, and a lot of actual invention is somewhat random... without a wider implication.

I'm skeptical that "history of X" fields can really focus on what he wants them to focus on. The types of insights that he's looking for are, as he says himself, best found in primary sources. There will always be a limited supply of these, since people who write books and people who invent things overlap irregularly.

On the positive side, since he seems to mostly want inspiration, a little can go a long way.

Totally tangential... Military historians used to play a lot of "tactics," trying to recreate battles with board game pieces or whatnot. There are endless generations of such commentary on Roman vs Etruscan spear formations. The evolution of helmets or whatnot. I don't think we learn much from this.

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

#92

Post by Sharlin » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 12:28 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #82

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.

So what? Sometimes ideas have to be reinvented, maybe this time they succeed. There could be two reasons why old ideas (talking about Software here) didnt succeed, one is Hardware wasnt capeable, the other is 'they didnt cross the chasm' - both might be different now (third option, the idea is bad, then one shouldnt do it again of course).

You're still assuming a linear model of history. My point was that history is cyclical, the same trends come and go. Static vs dynamic typing. Thin client vs thick client. Local vs distributed. Key-value vs relational. Monolithic vs micro*. And so on.

Yes, sometimes these have to do with changing requirements or hardware capabilities, but more often they're just about a new generation wanting shiny new things rather than boring old things. Except that the shiny new things were the boring old things of the previous iteration.

Many ideas of the yesteryear were not bad or even infeasible, indeed they were successfully put into real-world use. Until the tide changed and they became unfashionable for whatever reason. And then they became fashionable again, but without a view of the history there's little synthesis of ideas, little learning from past experiences beyond the current cycle.

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

#93

Post by Sharlin » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 12:38 PM UTC

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.

The difference is that the way to balance a check book doesn't change every five years, or these days more like every year. Maybe if programmers knew a bit more about history, they wouldn't need to reinvent it so often and could be more like accountants.

But programmers don't want to be accountants, they want to use new and shiny things even when it's not the pragmatic choice, even when it would be better engineering to understand things in a broader context, to understand the history behind these "new" (actually old) things.

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

#94

Post by adamnew123456 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 1:09 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #83

tremon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. But I am wondering, I remember linux had a lot of multiple Desktops, but somehow this fad never stuck. So maybe one Desktop was somehow a good idea?

I'm not sure fad is the right descriptor here. Unix WMs have had virtual desktops since the 90s (80s?), MacOS got them around 2006 and Windows in 2015.

Use by the non-initiated may not be that high, but that shouldn't be surprising given that user education is a very scarce resource and it's being spent elsewhere.

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

#95

Post by xorcist » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 1:14 PM UTC

jonathankoren wrote: post #50

sanxiyn wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MMIX is not bullshit. Knuth is interested in concrete complexity as well as asymptotic complexity, e.g. why quick sort is faster than heap sort, so he needs concrete model of computation. It may be an overkill if you aren't interested in concrete complexity, but it serves a purpose.

There’s a reason why no one explains abstract algorithms in assembly. It’s a trash idea, that obscures more than it illuminates. It’s a flex. A flex that is marginally above explaining an algorithm through a wiring diagram of thermionic valves.

No one, except Donald Knuth himself, widely regarded as one of the best explainers of algorithms we have?

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

#96

Post by ghaff » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

juliendorra wrote: post #84

tannhaeuser wrote: post #70

In 2021, we're having difficulties to surface even the history of computing and canonical documentation of the last two decades or so. Go search anything about early HTML, early JavaScript, research results in CompSci not even ten years old, POSIX reference docs, or even up-to-date JVM javadoc pages using your favorite search engine. It'll bring up all kinds of content marketing, naive march-of-progress advertising f…

that’s probably where the methodology used by trained historians is useful. I created a History of Tech Design class [0] of 6 different tracks for design students. I’m not an historian, but I have some training in finding original sources, sorting them, accessing archives… it helped a lot, and I could use a lot of primary sources full of not-well-known details. Back in the 90s it would have taken me weeks or months t…

Especially as you get back to 20 or 25 years ago, the idea that you can just do some web searches to uncover much more than surface information is somewhat naive. A lot of information isn't accessible to casual public search. You need to use libraries, talk to people, etc.

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

#97

Post by kergonath » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

andi999 wrote: post #83

tremon wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree. But I am wondering, I remember linux had a lot of multiple Desktops, but somehow this fad never stuck. So maybe one Desktop was somehow a good idea?

Don’t all major OS have virtual desktops now? A single desktop is very restrictive, it’s much easier to have some spatial separation between contexts.

It might not be the most visible feature for most users, but it is definitely an important one, which I would hate to see go away.

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

#98

Post by andi999 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

adamnew123456 wrote: post #94

andi999 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But I am wondering, I remember linux had a lot of multiple Desktops, but somehow this fad never stuck. So maybe one Desktop was somehow a good idea?

I'm not sure fad is the right descriptor here. Unix WMs have had virtual desktops since the 90s (80s?), MacOS got them around 2006 and Windows in 2015. Use by the non-initiated may not be that high, but that shouldn't be surprising given that user education is a very scarce resource and it's being spent elsewhere.

I meant as a default.

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

#99

Post by andi999 » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

kergonath wrote: post #97

andi999 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. But I am wondering, I remember linux had a lot of multiple Desktops, but somehow this fad never stuck. So maybe one Desktop was somehow a good idea?

Don’t all major OS have virtual desktops now? A single desktop is very restrictive, it’s much easier to have some spatial separation between contexts. It might not be the most visible feature for most users, but it is definitely an important one, which I would hate to see go away.

How do you use virtual Desktop in windows?

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

#100

Post by juliendorra » Thu, Jan 28, 2021, 1:41 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #96

juliendorra wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that’s probably where the methodology used by trained historians is useful. I created a History of Tech Design class [0] of 6 different tracks for design students. I’m not an historian, but I have some training in finding original sources, sorting them, accessing archives… it helped a lot, and I could use a lot of primary sources full of not-well-known details. Back in the 90s it would have taken me weeks or months t…

Especially as you get back to 20 or 25 years ago, the idea that you can just do some web searches to uncover much more than surface information is somewhat naive. A lot of information isn't accessible to casual public search. You need to use libraries, talk to people, etc.

You would be surprised, as I was, how much raw documents and primary sources much much older than 2000/1995 (to take your 20/25 year reference) are available, thanks to various digitization efforts. Check my notes for some nice sources dating back to the 60s.

(Not in my notes but just yesterday I stumbled upon the original 1990 memo by adobe co-founder John Warnock for the PDF project, Camelot. Great read)

You are absolutely right that there’s so much more in boxes somewhere and in the mind of the people who were there, but as a starting point online archives are great. We can only encourage more digitization of more archives (it’s a lot or works, organizing and sorting even before scanning)