Comment by mehrdadn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mehrdadn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

3 of those 4 just seem... plain wrong?

The first design of a general-purpose computer was obviously Babbage's. Wikipedia says work on it started in 1833, after the difference engine (already completed by 1822). He even developed two dozen programs for it between 1837-1840. He just ran into funding issues for his projects.

Now if for some reason you feel an urge to hold an external issue like the lack of funding against him when giving credit, then you'd give credit to Konrad Zuse's Z3 (1941) for the first completed implementation. The fact that most computer scientists haven't even heard his name is evidence enough in my eyes that that's a thin rope to hang onto, but whatever.

Beyond that, I find mention of those 3 other people just bizarre. If the person who actually produced the first design for a computer started its implementation doesn't get the credit, and the person who finally built the first one doesn't get the credit either... then are you sure your credit criteria are actually reasonable?!

I don't think they're particularly hard arguments to make.

Turing is the easiest:

What is a computer? What isn't a computer? If you can't answer that question, you don't have a computer. The Church-Turing thesis is the invention of the computer.

Lovelace and Hopper are notable for paradigm shifts (as much as I hate the term) in what computers "are".

Lovelace invented computers because the essence of the computer is the ability to perform computations, not just calculations:

Lovelace published the first algorithm (Babbage obviously had to have written a few to design an analytical engine) and was the first person imagine computers as more than just a flexible calculator. In particular, she was the first to use a variable to represent anything beyond the intermediate/final step of a calculation: she was computing the 7th term of a series, so she used series/loop indices.

Hopper invented computers because a general-purpose computer is a computation machine with a human-friendly interface. A "smart" lightbulb that runs embedded linux isn't a "computer" (until modified).

Grace Hopper conceived of abstract programming in human-aligned languages, and invented A-0, the first "compiler" (her term; now we'd call it a linker). Before Hopper, computers were only ever programmed directly in machine code; every step of a computer program was a specific operation. Before A-0, we just had computation machines, but no human-centered interface. After A-0, we had computers.

Zuse would be a perfectly excellent 5th name, as would Church, Godel, Herbrand, Bohm, and many others.

Turing is the easiest because he's the only one that makes any sense. You have to get incredibly philosophical to have Hopper or Lovelace on the list as they very obviously did not invented the computer.

I implore you to read about the origins of the word computer and who those people were and what they did. Also just in general about the Analytical Engine, Babbage, and Lovelace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#Etymology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(job_description)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#First_computing_devic...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_program#Analytical_En...

I'm quite familiar with them. But the colloquial term "computer" isn't the same as the historical term, and that's the point here. We aren't talking about the job, or a design that wasn't implemented, or a mechanical computer because nobody means that when they say "computer".

Also throwing in Claude Shannon and John Von Neumann as major contributors to the development of computers.

> What is a computer? What isn't a computer? If you can't answer that question, you don't have a computer. The Church-Turing thesis is the invention of the computer.

I don't get this sentiment. So if we had the same devices we did nowadays, with all the same capabilities, but nobody had developed the theory behind computation... then we wouldn't actually have computers? Even though we could do exactly the same things as we do now?

Or heck, so this means even a modern layperson can't have computers? Because in order to have a computer they have to be able to define the Church-Turing thesis for you first? If I hand my laptop to my grandma then suddenly she has... what? An email-receiving brick with a touchscreen that somehow isn't a computer?

> Lovelace invented computers because [...]

No, what she's given credit for is being the first computer programmer (in our modern definitions). Now even that is disputed [1], but regardless, taking it at face value, that's what she gets credit for. Not for inventing the device she was using, but for tasks she realized she could use it for, which Babbage (allegedly?) did not realize.

> the essence of the computer is the ability to perform computations, not just calculations

I don't know if you can tease out a comprehensive definition for what exactly means here, because I don't think I can give a natural definition that would somehow pinpoint the credit to Lovelace rather than Babbage or Turing. Even if you look up what 'computation' means now, the dictionary will say something like "mathematical calculation". The only way I see to exclude 'calculation' from it seems to be to say "the ability to perform Turing-complete calculations", a formal notion which just didn't exist back then, so the credit for that wouldn't go to Lovelace.

> Hopper invented computers because a general-purpose computer is a computation machine with a human-friendly interface.

No, she's given (like you acknowledged) credit for making the first linker. Not the first computer. Nobody I've ever seen tries to argue she invented the first computer. Are these claims you actually hear in the real world?

> Before Hopper, computers were only ever programmed directly in machine code; every step of a computer program was a specific operation. Before A-0, we just had computation machines, but no human-centered interface. After A-0, we had computers.

Great, so the credit to give here would be that Hopper invented high-level programming languages (or something along those lines). Not that she just flat-out invented the computer!.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#Controversy_over_...

I suppose most of the people I have heard these names from are not in the same league as you. I appreciate this summary though thanks.

I also regret my sarcasm, sorry.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com