
Grace Hopper and UNIVAC - benev
http://www.linuxvoice.com/history-of-computing-part-2?pk_campaign=hn&pk_kwd=3
======
fit2rule
With the recent revival of a PDP-1 hitting the news, I was wondering if we're
going to see a revival in hand-made computing - i.e. systems you really can
build yourself from raw components. It seems feasible to me - an ex-boss once
impressed me highly by unveiling a full-blown computer he'd made from some
recycled relays, and while it wasn't going to kick any ass in the speed
department, it was certainly capable of calculating my 6-year olds' homework.

Would be great to see a kit computer, of this scale of old-school, hit the
scene some day .. I wonder if it would be viable? I'd certainly buy it .. it'd
fit next to my rack-mount modular synth. ;)

------
phaemon
For anyone who doesn't know - Linux Voice is the new magazine that was
crowdfunded on Indiegogo a few months back.

They've put out three issues so far (this article is from the second issue -
next is Alan Turing) and I can honestly say I'm very happy that I bought a
subscription. It's well worth a look.

~~~
nkozyra
That's a pretty encouraging start - I was going to subscribe but the rate
seems exorbitant. Is this just a symptom of small-scale publishing, of
crowdfunding, a lack of advertising or all of the above?

~~~
benev
We've done our best to match or undercut out main competition, while at the
same time providing more pages. The advertising market for Linux magazines
isn't great, so none of them get much money from that, but of course it does
take up space, so each page of adverts is one page less content you have to
pay for (We have few).

Yearly subscriptions start from £38 (digital), which we think is pretty good
considering how much we pack into each issue (take a look here for the
contents list of issue 3: [http://www.linuxvoice.com/issue-3-is-
out/](http://www.linuxvoice.com/issue-3-is-out/)).

Print subs are obviously more expensive, mostly due to the cost of postage.

------
brudgers
In a military organization, clarity of communication is critical and Hopper
had the right idea about language design. Something echoed by Ableson and
Sussman and reflected in their choice of Scheme for it's Newtonian lack of
complications.

Without even looking at a book or working through a tutorial, I found that I
could read and understand the Flowmatic program the first time I saw it. No
surprise that it failed. Too much risk that a pointy haired boss could
accurately identify an uncaught bug. Nothing offers job security like
obfuscating simple ideas.

~~~
andreasvc
There is a trade off between a language that is easy to read and that is easy
to write. Wordy, English-like programming languages are typically harder to
write, and that may often not be the right trade off to make. I think this is
a much more credible reason why more succinct languages caught on, rather than
your far fetched suggestion that mistakes need to be hidden from bosses.

~~~
brudgers
Well, I wasn't suggesting it as a universal law because obviously some
programmers don't work for pointy haired bosses. Some work for themselves and
others for another programmer...and what programmer thinks Cobol is so cool
they would use it by choice?

In the life cycle of a significant program, which is more important how easily
it was initially written, or how easily it can be read and understood over the
years?

Because no one can write write a self-documenting Regex, Regex's are only
easier to write because any need to document programs is ignored. The
extension of this practice is an argument is that code should not contain a
lot of comments because comments tend not to be maintained. As Larry Wall
noted, Laziness, Hubris, and Impatience all play their role - He being the
person responsible for a language so obfuscating as to garner a reputation for
author's being unable to understand their own programs {heavy on Regex a
coincidence or correlation?}

As Perlis said "It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a
correct one." Particularly if the language makes it harder to read the correct
program and speeds up the process of writing the incorrect one. Flomatic and
Cobol are verbose for exactly the same reason that some programming languages
have static type systems and nobody really takes claims about their verbosity
seriously because we recognize the tradeoff of keystrokes for clarity.

Hopper was a Naval officer. She took programming seriously and she understood
human nature. They're both reflected in her approach to programming languages.
She realized that people can die if a program on the fire control computer is
incorrect and a 16" artillery shell falls short onto friendlies or long onto a
maternity ward. Nothing promotes the importance of clear communication for
robustness like combat - as in civilian life you never know who might be dead
or retired or reassigned when the code needs to change.

BTW, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. On the other hand, programmers have
been known to use obfuscation as a means for protecting their jobs, and bosses
being able to read code is the primary argument for using technical people as
managers rather than those with general experience as managers. Programmers
are no less immune from creating fiefdoms than anyone else.

~~~
andreasvc
Actually I don't accept your premise that a wordy, English-like language is
easier to read. Code must be both comfortable to read & write (i.e., elegant).
If we assume our reader knows both language A & B, then 1 line in language A
is definitely easier to read than the equivalent 10 lines in language B. Just
because language B looks more familiar does not mean the precise semantics
come across better. A small set of keywords is easier to fit in your head.
Furthermore, in the more verbose language you are forced to spend energy that
could also be spent in thinking about whether the code is correct.

Regular expressions can be properly documented in a multiline style with
comments etc. For a non-trivial regular expression, the previous example
holds: converting the regular expression to a sequence of if-else statements
would easily take 10x the number of lines. On top of that, regular expressions
are implemented efficiently. That said, I do believe comments are necessary
and don't think Perl is a good language to use.

The argument about static typing and verbosity is moot, because static typing
does not have to be _manifest_ typing, since type inference can provide the
advantages of static typing without the verbosity.

Regarding taking programming seriously, I don't believe that has very much to
do with the language, but rather with the software engineering process, cf.
[http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-
stuff](http://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff)

------
nkozyra
One of the most fascinating people in the early development of language
design.

Can't wait to get that lone, VB6-based UNIVAC emulator a shot. :) Hopefully I
can get the source in case it needs any defishing.

