Comment by wslh | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wslh | Hacker News Reader

This paper is wrong if the article "History of computing in South America" at Wikipedia is right [1]: the first computer arrived in Chile in 1957, not in Mexico.

There is another issue. Here [2] where the first computer in Brazil also arrives in 1957 and it is not included in [1]:

> 1957 - A Univac-120 arrived, the first computer in Brazil, acquired by the Government of the State of São Paulo, it was used to calculate all water consumption in the capital. It occupied the entire floor of the building where it was installed. Equipped with 4,500 valves, it performed 12,000 additions or subtractions per minute and 2,400 multiplications or divisions at the same time.

So, we need to check which of those two computers arrived earlier.

BTW, there is an article about Argentina and computers in a complex political moment [3] (as usual). It also touches the computer science field itself beyond the hardware involved.

The first computer built in Latam was in Argentina, it started in 1958 and was finished around 1962 [4].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_computing_in_South_...

[2] https://tpilmg.wixsite.com/tpilmg/en/historia-dos-computador...

[3] The First Decade of Computer Science in Argentina: https://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/bitstream/handle/10915/24033/Docu...

[4] https://mapmeld.medium.com/first-computer-by-country-81fa479...

This article has July 18, 1957 as the date for the Univac 120's arrival in Brazil: https://comp.ita.br/iec/

Most other sources just mention the year.

Chile (South america) is not in the same continent as Mexico (North america).

The way it is phrased is prone to confusion but article says: "This date marks a milestone in the history of computing in Latin America, as the IBM-650 was the first electronic computer to operate on this continent, south of the Rio Grande."

"This continent" meaning North America, not Latin America (which is not a continent).

> Chile (South america) is not in the same continent as Mexico (North america).

The distinction is region-dependent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas#Spanish

It is not region-dependent but language dependent and even yet I don't think the distinction is universal. The article is written in english which is important here.

Besides, many Mexican people will roll eyes if people say they are not from north america, complain if they are described as central americans yet embrace the idea they are part of latin america which obviously Suriname, France or Guyana aren't part of. OTOH people from europe will usually say Mexico are part of central america. Some historians would say that only one part of Mexico is part of central america (usually called Mesoamérica).

So the answer is "it's complicated" but I tend to steer towards how people living there describe themselves.

> The article is written in english which is important here.

From said article:

> This paper is a translation of the original paper in Spanish “Computadoras Mexicanas: Una Breve Reseña Técnica e Histórica” by Daniel Ortiz Arroyo, Francisco Rodríguez Henríquez, Carlos A. Coello Coello

Not wanting to argue forever but isn't the job of the translator to adapt the text to the language used? Unless we read original version we can't know for sure which word they used.

EDIT: it is actually available and they phrase it pretty much the same way: https://www.ru.tic.unam.mx/bitstream/handle/123456789/1415/a... "esta fecha marca un hito en la historia de la informática en Latinoamérica, pues la IBM-650 fue la primera computadora electrónica en operar en este continente, al sur del río Bravo."

Given the authors are mexicans and my experience with mexican people, I still believe they mean north america when they say "continente". There is a reason the concept of panamericanismo/pan-america exists to describe something that has to do with all american countries. But I agree how confusing it can be for someone living in another country where they mean continent as the whole uninterrupted piece of land inbetween the pacific and the atlantic ocean.

I am confused now. Are you arguing then that the distinction is dependent on region and not language? Because that is precisely what I said in a previous comment.

My guess it is both based on both your link and my experience. My experience is limited to Mexico. I can't speak for others and it could very well be that the notion of continent in Mexico, and for example Chile or any other latin american country may vary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com