Actually not true. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z3_(computer)
Sadly it is part of a general trend in the english speaking world to overstate the scientific and technical achievements of one's countrymen
Sadly it is part of a general trend in the english speaking world to overstate the scientific and technical achievements of one's countrymen
I'd also like to give a hearty recommendation to anyone interested in such things that they take the time to visit Bletchley. The exhibits at Bletchley Park are fascinating and the working machines next door at TNMOC are amazing. In addition to the Colossus rebuild, I was particularly taken with the Harwell Dekatron, which has enough blinking lights and chattering relays to belong on a 50s sci-fi movie set. I was disappointed that the rebuild of the EDSAC wasn't ready, but maybe I'll get back there some day. I also hope to see the reconstructed Zuse machines if I get back to Germany.
Historically (as in,5/6 years ago), Bletchley Park was in dire need of major upkeep work and stimulus to keep it open. It’s only been since the Turing film came out that the Park received a ton of funding and managed to pull itself into the modern era as a museum and afford all of the expensive work that needed to be done to restore the machines.
I remember walking around there as a kid with my dad (perhaps 15 years ago or so) and there was considerably less content and working machinery. I only remember seeing an enigma machine - the emphasis was much more around life during WW2 and general military technology. Nowadays the focus is on signal intelligence and code breaking, and is honestly much more interesting. We always go there once every year or so to check it out and see new exhibits, but still haven’t visited the now separate computing museum on the main site.
Can’t recommend visiting Bletchley Park highly enough if you’re in the UK, only a 30 to 45 minute train journey out of London, and the park is literally opposite Bletchley train station.
If you do visit, don’t be under the impression that the town of Bletchley that houses the park is equally as beautiful - it’s not. Don’t visit the town. You will be very, very disappointed if you’re a foreign tourist on a day trip.
It's a trend in every nation but the english speaking world dominates the media landscape. So you'll see a more skewed outlook. It shouldn't be shocking that the BBC has a skewed view on such topics.
For example, I was taught that newton invented calculus, but we know that calculus had contributions from many people including people like leibniz.
It goes beyond nations as well. For example, europeans claim they discovered americas when natives beat them by 10000 years. Europeans celebrate the gutenburg press when the chinese and koreans had it hundreds of years before. We are taught that greeks gave us civilization when in actuality, greeks borrowed their civilization from many many places.
Nationalism, regionalism, etc isn't just an english-speaking world phenomenon. It's a human condition. I'm sure if you look at other nations or cultures, you'll see that they also view themselves as exceptional and take an unreasonable amount of credit for things they did or did not invent.
Actually, Gutenberg did build the first printing press. The Chinese developed both printing and movable type much earlier, but they did not go on to develop a full press for printing.
This is one of the issues: there is a lot of cultural value in being able to make the "first" claim stick, but it is often very difficult to define what constitutes "first." Stephenson's Rocket was not the first locomotive, but it was clearly so superior to every other extant model that every subsequent locomotive relied heavily on its innovation. The B&O Railroad is one of the strongest contenders for "first railroad in the US" title, yet the early railroad is nothing like the modern one, particularly in track construction.
The chinese developed printing and movable type but not a "full press"? Not sure if I follow. I'd say the chinese/koreans invented the movable type ( metal type ) and the printing press but latin/alphabet languages/writings were better suited to being exploited to movable type/printing press than the chinese writing system? A movable type printing press based on 26 letter is far better than one based on thousands of characters. But it's still the printing press.
> This is one of the issues: there is a lot of cultural value in being able to make the "first" claim stick, but it is often very difficult to define what constitutes "first."
Absolutely. You could argue those who popularized an invention is even more important than those who invented it. Steve Jobs didn't invent the PC, he didn't invent smartphones, he didn't invent tablets, etc, but you could argue he is more important those who invented it because he popularized it.
They were advanced printmakers, but for some reason the printing press never happened.
There's a lot to unpack here.
Printing, specifically, is a means of transferring ink to paper (or parchment, but paper tends to work better for printing for mechanical reasons). There are several different variations on the idea, but the original genesis of the idea and much of the early variation does originate in China.
The basics of printing boil down to: you have a raised platform that contains the thing being printed, you cover that with ink, you place the paper on top of it, and then you apply pressure to transfer ink to paper. For the Asian woodblock printing, I believe pressure was mostly applied via rubbing.
Movable type was an innovation that allowed you to build the block that was used for printing out of reusable components, which dramatically cuts down on the time it takes to prepare the blocks. East Asian languages are well-suited for movable type because their language is already written in a highly grid-based system; by contrast, the Latin alphabet has characters that bleed into other's boxes all over the place (kerning is a thing in Latin, not in Chinese). Extending printing to the Latin alphabet came with a lot more typographic changes than you'd think.
Gutenberg made, or at least synthesized for the first time in one piece, several innovations [1] in his press: the reuse of press technology to apply force evenly and quickly to paper; the development of a lead alloy for type that was long-lasting and could withstand the forces with less wear; the development of more uniform molds for the type; the development of better inks for pressing against the paper.
It's certainly true that the innovations of printing and movable type are Chinese. But those innovations, while necessary, were not sufficient to facilitate the massive spread of printing to make books cheap and ubiquitous. Extra innovations that Europeans did (in typecasting and the press itself, most notably) were also necessary.
[1] It's debated how many of these were actually done by Gutenberg himself versus how many were developed by other contemporary European shops and reused by Gutenberg. In either case, everything I'm listing was innovated in Europe, not in China.
There are about 2304 "first" computers, by my model.
The Manchester Baby is small, slow and primitive, but it's also fundamentally modern, implementing a proper von Neumann architecture. It had a much more primitive arithmetic unit than the Z3 (capable only of subtraction and negation), but it had an instruction set that would be familiar to a modern programmer.
Zuse didn't know that he had built a Turing-complete computer. He was a practical man and built a practical machine for performing useful calculations. The Manchester Baby was explicitly built as a general-purpose computer. It was in many ways less useful than than the Z3, but it was a far more significant advance. Although Kilburn, Williams and Tootill knew nothing of the work that had been done at Bletchley Park, they were guided by people who did.
IMO Zuse's machines were the big deal, but they were buried under a number of other firsts that weren't that revolutionary, after the war when the Allies were writing history alone for a few years.
While I agree that, conceptually, there is little difference between a program on tape and one in working memory, the latter has a huge speed advantage. More intriguingly, I believe it was thought at the time that the ability of a program to modify itself would be very useful. Turing had already shown that it did not expand what is computable (though I do not know if that was widely appreciated), but even so, when you have very little, and slow, working memory, if it allowed you to reduce the size or speed of your program, that might be a big deal. Even the early COBOL allowed for limited self-modification, in the form of a goto that could be modified during execution to go to different addresses. The problem with self-modifying code turned out to be that it is very hard to reason about and debug.
Instruction pointer and explicit branching.
The Z3 is still (in a theoretical sense) Turing-complete, even without branching instructions (exponential path construction).
"We can therefore say that, from an abstract theoretical perspective, the computing model of the Z3 is equivalent to the computing model of today's computers. From a practical perspective, and in the way the Z3 was really programmed, it was not equivalent to modern computers."
British machinery like Colossus was still kept a closely guarded secret until the mid 1970s.
You might on rare occasions load a bootstrap program into memory from paper tape or even by hand from the console tho.
Doesn't make sense as a distinction for "stored-program computer", since that's just called a Von Neumann architecture.