Hacker News Reader

Comment by nonrandomstring | Hacker News Reader

Here's a lineage of energy that should interest hackers

Goethe -> Mary Wollstonecraft -> Mary Shelley -> Byron & Percy Shelley -> Ada Lovelace

Ada got inspiration from the romanticism of Byron which burned brightly in the circle of influences of the Shelleys who were interested in animism (proto-neurology). Shelley's interest in animist-necromancy and artificial minds created by electricity is rooted in childhood trauma of her mother (Wollstonecraft) dying in childbirth. Mary sought a way to revive her spirit though science. Maybe, like all hermeneutic interpretations it's fuzzy, but there's a trajectory from the Greek influences on German philosophy to the imaginings that underpin the computer age.

View on HN

This argument might hold up better if Ada Lovelace were a more important or foundational figure. In reality, although undoubtedly bright and an intuitive 'computational thinker', as far as I know her contribution did not have a great influence on any later work and would probably be almost entirely obscure were it not for the significance of her being a woman.

> as far as I know her contribution did not have a great influence on any later work

From the Wikipedia article on Ada Lovelace... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace "She was the first to recognise that [Babbage's] machine had applications beyond pure calculation, and to have published the first algorithm intended to be carried out by such a machine."

Many of the greatest ideas seem obvious in retrospect. Of course commenting "anybody could have done that" is standard HN to the point of parody.

> would probably be almost entirely obscure were it not for the significance of her being a woman.

And now we see the much darker side of HN. :(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#Controversy_over_...

The previous commenter said that Lovelace didn't have any great influence on later works -- the Wikipedia article you used to bash them for it seems to back that up.

Many geniuses don't end up having a lot of influence over later work. It's not an insult to their ability to say so.

If you maintain that the idea of applying a computation machine to purposes besides calculation wasn't particularly "influential", I question the usefulness of whatever definition of "influential" you are applying here.

Even one of the critics quoted in the "controversy" section of the Wikipedia article (which isn't about how "influential" she was anyway) grants that much to her:

> But [Swade] agrees that Ada was the only person to see the potential of the analytical engine as a machine capable of expressing entities other than quantities.

I'm not saying anyone could've done what she did. I don't know why you're putting those words in my mouth.

I'm also not saying her contribution wasn't good - it was, though I believe it to be relatively minor (then again, she died tragically young - she could well have gone on to accomplish a great deal more).

What I'm saying is that it wasn't particularly influential, which I believe to be the case. That is, it largely came to be appreciated after it had been superseded, and therefore is known for its historical value rather than for being scientifically or technologically formative. This is important because the OP was trying to trace a lineage from the work of Goethe to the underpinnings of Computer Science.

As for the comment that upsets you, I would ask - do you disagree that Lovelace's life and work has been used as a football by people with a point to prove for decades? It's not to discredit her that I say she would likely otherwise be obscure. Lots of intelligent, novel thinkers are obscure. But rightly or wrongly the nature of her person has come to be more significant than the specifics of her work.

> That is, it largely came to be appreciated after it had been superseded,

You don't "supersede" the idea of applying computation to purposes beyond number crunching.

> As for the comment that upsets you, I would ask - do you disagree that Lovelace's life and work has been used as a football by people with a point to prove for decades?

It was picked out of the clear blue sky in the comment I replied to, if we're looking for such things.

Because your whole criticism obviously applies to Babbage as well, who was a failure and had no influence on the creation of electronic computers in the 1940s. Why did this obvious criticism escape comment?

Babbage's contribution was substantially larger and more impressive than Lovelace's in my opinion. But you're right, it was essentially a technical cul-de-sac. For what it's worth, I think - in spite of his genius - Babbage can also be said to occupy an inflated position in the public consciousness, but for reasons of national pride rather than gender politics. My impression from German language sources on the history of computation is that Konrad Zuse is talked about rather more, and Babbage rather less.

I was happy to see her and Babbage had a small stand at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View when I went last Sunday. It was roughly the same size as Turings. It was amusing to see far more space given to calculators by Texas Instruments!

my guess is that Ms. Lovelace and Mr. Babbage didn't make contributions to the Museum ;)

Haha quite possibly that!

> Of course commenting "anybody could have done that" is standard HN to the point of parody.

What? Grandparent commenter didn't say that. You appear to be hallucinating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com