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

11–20 of 171 posts

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

#11

Post by jonathankoren »

aidenn0 wrote: post #7
dwheeler wrote: post #3

One 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.

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.

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

#12

Post by aidenn0 »

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 mean Joyce is notoriously hard to read, no?

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

#13

Post by tyingq »

ampdepolymerase wrote: post #4
username90 wrote: post #2

The 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…

I had the impression that there was a fair amount of CS history that only shined much later when CPU, IO, memory, etc, was big enough or fast enough for it to become practical.

Edit: Meaning there are pretty straightforward reasons to care about history.

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

#15

Post by johnorourke »

I wonder if Architecture - a much older trade, also having immediate commercial value and expensive intellectual property - has a technical history?

Or accountancy - another old trade with immediate commercial value, though perhaps without as much intellectual property.

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

#16

Post by sjg007 »

johnorourke wrote: post #15

I wonder if Architecture - a much older trade, also having immediate commercial value and expensive intellectual property - has a technical history? Or accountancy - another old trade with immediate commercial value, though perhaps without as much intellectual property.

Umm. yes?

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

#17

Post by Ice_cream_suit »

In most active and growing fields ( medicine is one example ), the history of the field is generally ignored by students and practitioners.

There are a few pleasant exceptions. For instance, Neurology Minute have had occassional bits on the history of neurology. See https://neurologyminute.libsyn.com/

However, when reading something historical ( for instance this interesting podcast on the history of the Inverted Brachioradialis Reflex) https://neurologyminute.libsyn.com/history-of-neurology-3-hx..., there is no expectation that it will actually contribute to practice.

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

#18

Post by sjg007 »

detaro wrote: post #8
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.

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)

Ride the mach continuum between the micro and monolithic.. not really interesting. Basically opening up user mode device drivers or user mode code in the kernel (sandboxes).

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

#19

Post by username90 »

ampdepolymerase wrote: post #9
username90 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, that was my point. I wondered what your point was.

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

#20

Post by dkarl »

username90 wrote: post #2

The 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?

People don't want to look back at

- how far we came in each decade

- how brilliant people had to be to invent ideas that feel obvious to us

- how much people got done with previous decades' technology

- how many times history the consensus of expert opinion mis-predicted the next development

because we want to believe

- the current state of the art is close to perfection than it is to the last generation

- we only have to embrace the obvious

- people who are one step behind the times are at an insurmountable disadvantage to us who are up-to-date

- the future will bring nothing more than a higher perfection of the ideas we embrace now

It's intellectual millennialism. We want to think that the new ideas we receive at the beginning of our career are the final piece of the puzzle, that there's no point in generations beyond us. Our ideas give us special powers to accomplish things that no previous generation could accomplish, and no subsequent generation will accomplish much more, or the same things much easier, than we did. We are standing at the end of history. We are the generation that left the desert and entered the promised land.

History upsets all that. History teaches us that the future will stand in relation to us as we stand in relation to the past, whereas we want to believe that we are equals with the future and superior to the past.

Post reply on HN