Live data from Hacker News

The story of the first “computer bug” is a pile of lies

lunduke.substack.com

31–40 of 121 posts

Re: The story of the first “computer bug” is a pile of lies

#31
The log book entry that says, "First actual case of bug being found", indeed always seemed like a piece of humour to me. The presence of the word "actual" in the entry makes sense only if the term "bug" to mean defects is already established in the industry. If this log book entry really were the first time a bug was found in a computer, it would have merely said, "a bug was found", not "first actual case of bug".

Imagine a world where there is no Python programming language. One day you arrive at your office and find a python (the reptile) on your desk. You would probably say, "found a python at my desk". But if that were to happen today, I am sure pictures of it would be taken and circulated within the team with captions like, "An actual Python workspace".

The presence of the word "actual" is the clue that the term is well established in the engineering world and that it is an attempt at humour.

Re: The story of the first “computer bug” is a pile of lies

#34
Grace Hopper telling the bug story, saying that [THIS PART MIGHT BE WRONG, SEE BELOW: she was there but] the bug was extracted from the relay and the note written in the logbook by “the operator”:

> “We were building Mark II on the summer of 1945 [...] Mark II stopped. We finally located the failing relay, it was one of the big signal relays, and inside the relay, beaten to death by the relay contacts, was a moth about this big.

> “So the operator got a pair of tweezers and very carefully fished the moth out of the relay, put it in the logbook, put scotch tape over it, and below it he wrote «first actual bug found».

> “I’m sure you'll be glad to know that the bug is still under the log under the scotch tape in the log book. It’s in the museum at the Naval Surface Weapons Center [now Naval Surface Warfare Center https://www.navy.mil/NAVAL-SURFACE-WARFARE-CENTER-DAHLGREN/] at Dahlgren Virginia.

> “Now I’ve told that story a lot of times but it turned out some people didn’t believe me. Among them the American Federation of Information Processing Societies, so they made an expedition to Dahlgren and sure enough they found the bug under the scotch tape in the log book so they took a picture of it, and they published it in the July 1981 Annals of the History of Computing. So the first bug is now legal, and I think it’s rather nice that the Navy is preserving some of the early artifacts like the first bug, and me, and a few other things.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABlivzyfhQE&t=518s

Now, what the author of the linked article (Lunduke) is disputing is the distorted re-telling of this story by others. Grace Hopper did not claim that the writing was hers or that it was the origin of the term “bug” applied to computers, that was sloppy journalists.

There is one small detail in Lunduke’s article that I could criticize:

> “Nor was it found or recorded by Grace Hopper.”

She did not record it as noted above, but she clearly says that she was part of the group that “debugged” Mark II that day.

Edit to add: see also eesmith’s comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32518611

Edit 2: the comment by psychoslave links to the Wikipedia page without further context, and there it says that Hopper was not present when the moth was found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug#cite_ref-huggins_...

Following the citations in that section of the Wikipedia page, I got this:

> “During the 1986 interviews, Gene Gleirsner and Ralph Niemann recalled that the Mark II operator who found the bug and taped it into the logbook was Bill Burke, who later moved to Dahlgren as a computer operator.

> “Howard Aiken's Third Machine: The Harvard Mark III Calculator or Aiken-Dahlgren Electronic Calculator”, in “IEEE Annals of the History of Computing” January-March 2000, vol. 22, page 81: https://www.computer.org/csdl/magazine/an/2000/01/man2000010...

I haven’t been able to find any clear mention by Grace Hopper on whether she was there when the moth was found: in the video I linked at the top she might have said “They finally located” instead of “We finally located” as I heard. If she wasn’t there, then Lunduke’s article would be, AFAICT, completely correct. It is in any case way more correct than others I’ve read.

Re: The story of the first “computer bug” is a pile of lies

#35

The logbook entry only makes sense if "bug" is a pre-existing term for a glitch, otherwise the humor with the real bug would fall flat. So I never understood how anybody could claim that it was the origin of the term.

The use of "bug" to refer to an operational problem goes back to at least the mid 19th century. I vaguely remember an article where the author found reference to getting the bugs out of the design of a carriage.

Re: The story of the first “computer bug” is a pile of lies

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see that I ask myself: - Was good handwriting necessary for success in that time? - If so, how many people as creative as Edison languished because their handwriting sucked.

That's a good point. It's like how writing a good email is pretty essential these days, and people might lose out these days because of poor "online" communication

Listening to the average engineer presenting makes it really hard not to fall asleep. Reading the average engineers email it's often hard to find the point they're trying to make.

I think communication should be taught more in undergraduate engineering curricula.

Re: The story of the first “computer bug” is a pile of lies

#37
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In those days people took pride in their handwriting, nowadays the best you can do is to brag about your LaTeX typesetting

Interestingly, I think the reason is that cursive has been dropped from the US curriculum since 2013: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20171108-the-uncertain-fu...

Good riddance. I remember being forced to do this as a kid and knowing full well it was a waste of time and that my life would be spent with keyboards. The only time ive ever "needed" it was exactly once to write that paragraph they make you reproduce in cursive for the SAT, which makes no sense in the first place, as though the weight carried by an attestation is modulated by the font it's rendered in.

Now i feel bad for my colleagues who were diligent students and learned cursive. They are stuck with handwriting that becomes increasingly illegible to the general population with every passing year. The only benefit it offers is being marginally faster than printing, but still vastly slower than typing. People are so used to reading print that i would argue cursive is becoming regarded as somewhat unprofessional.

Re: The story of the first “computer bug” is a pile of lies

#38
post #12
post #9

I'd just like to say that Thomas Edison's handwriting in his letter is absolutely beautiful. It almost looks like it's been typed out on a computer using a funky font. It's funny how the handwriting of almost everyone I know is quite bad these days. My own is almost illegible! I wonder what everyone thinks about this general degradation in penmanship? I guess it's not really needed in this day and age, but there's so…

In those days people took pride in their handwriting, nowadays the best you can do is to brag about your LaTeX typesetting

> people took pride in their handwriting

A handwritten letter was often how others got their first impression of you, so you had external motivation for caring about it.

Re: The story of the first “computer bug” is a pile of lies

#40
If it were true, why would they write "first actual case of a bug being found"? It would be similar to people calling the First World War the First World War at the time. It doesn't make any sense. But it's a story that people want to be true, so nobody questions it.
Post reply on HN