MIT Whirlwind is in some ways ancestor to all modern computers by switching to bit-parallel architecture with multiple bits being handled at a time.
36bit word length became common for scientific applications because it was apparently considered enough to do equivalent of 10 digit precision in fixed precision arithmetic, thus common pattern of 36 among American scientific computer lines.
Later common availability of 4bit components like 74xxx families meant that multiplies of 4 bits started being common.
4bits also allow to handle calculations in BCD form, which had obvious use cases in businesses, which is partially why S/360 which attempted to consolidate IBMs scientific and business lines went with 32bit word length - 8 bit was comfortably 2 BCD digits and also would fit one character of then-upcoming ASCII standard (the reason EBCDIC survives in S/360 is that ASCII was not yet ready and IBM decided to extend their existing codes instead of taking unfinished standard that could change - and they had to hardcode it in some devices back then)
The final nail in 36bit and longer word lengths was floating point becoming fast enough - and arguably infighting between VAX and PDP-10 groups at DEC which among other things triggered existence of BSD Sockets API and their horrible legacy on networking.
Some notorious exceptions are the ENIAC and Whirlwind 1 which indeed were fully parallel.
As for 36-bit machines, they were also popular because of LISP, as a cons cell was 2x18 bits. I think this influenced the design of the PDP-6 and 10.
And yeah, I also wished DEC didn't kill the PDP-10 for the VAX, but that's another story.
And Lisp in turn took its "memory word is a cons cell because you can fit two addresses in one word" from a 36bit IBM scientific computer with 15 bit addressing.
For people who don't know:
Tag space included both CDR-coding (compression mechanism for linked lists), datatype tags, as well as formed portion of the instructions if the word contained instructions - on 3600 and Ivory each word could contain 1 or 2 instructions.
>And yeah, I also wished DEC didn't kill the PDP-10 for the VAX, but that's another story.
The DEC-20 was 6x faster than VAX-11/780 on at least one benchmark (that I wrote when I had access to both in the 80s..). DEC-20 was a PDP-10 implemented in ECL, it was quite fast.
> While most dekatrons are decimal counters, models were also made to count in base-5 and base-12 for specific applications.
Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dekatron
I’ve personally played on the Harwell Dekatron, it’s a fun machine