
Programmable 6,000-Part Drawing Boy Automaton Built 240 Years Ago - nzp
http://www.thisiscolossal.com/2013/11/the-writer-automata/
======
rian
Article/media is a bit sensationalistic in describing this as an early
computer. The programming language (a list of letters) doesn't support
arbitrary logic, branching and doesn't have a notion of memory. In that way,
it's like an intricate player piano or HTML. Still a marvel of mechanical
engineering but conceptually far from what we consider a computer today.

~~~
aedocw
I logged in to say this exact thing. This is not a programmable computer any
more than a printing press was a programmable computer.

This is an EXTREMELY clever and complicated printer.

~~~
bunderbunder
It's a bit oversimplistic to equate this with movable type. It's also
sensationalist to describe it as an early computer, of course. But I'd be
perfectly happy with characterizing it as a very early precursor to the
computer.

It's common to trace the lineage of modern computers back through the
Analytical Engine and the Difference engine to the Jacquard loom. And what the
Jacquard loom is, is an apparatus which takes input in the form of a digital
code and performs a distinct action for each possible value in the input. The
Writer is also an apparatus which takes input in the form of a digital code
and performs a distinct action for each possible value in the input.

The key difference is that the Jacquard loom's input is composite: It's a
series of bits, each of which indicates whether a corresponding harness should
be raised or lowered. That's enough of an incremental difference that I think
it'd be totally fair to treat The Writer as another step back in the modern
computer's lineage.

~~~
eru
It would be fun to create a loom that could weave holes, and then feed its
output into it as input.

~~~
JonnieCache
A knitted quine?

------
Nikolas0
There is also a way older "computer" from 100BC called the Antikythera
mechanism which was used by ancient Greek astronomers and sailors
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism)

------
superuser2
A similar machine formed a central plot point in the children's movie (and
book) Hugo:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_(film)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_\(film\)).

~~~
bausson
Makes me think of Doctor Who:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_in_the_Fireplace](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Girl_in_the_Fireplace)

I wonder if this mechanism was the inspiration for that episode, seems close
enough.

------
MichailP
This reminded me of this TED talk:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/john_graham_cumming_the_greatest_ma...](http://www.ted.com/talks/john_graham_cumming_the_greatest_machine_that_never_was.html)

Does anybody know about software for simulation of this kind of mechanical
devices? Is it even possible, for example to simulate all parts of mechanical
clock? Add 3D printing to that and ... :-)

~~~
fuzzix
If you are in the mood for video (though not necessarily on this topic) Prof.
Simon Schaffer's documentaries are invariably very interesting:

[http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2406693/](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2406693/)

Absolute Zero and Light Fantastic stick out in my mind as particularly good.

~~~
MichailP
Thank for the link, will check it out.

------
moocowduckquack
There is also DaVinci's programmable robot from 1495 -
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17206888](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17206888)

------
tobylane
BBC Four had a documentary on it a month ago [1], that I watched an hour ago.
It's on TPB (but I don't think I can link to it here?). Make sure you have
energy when you start watching this, the presenter is not the most
enthusiastic.

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0229pbp](http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0229pbp)

------
jmpe
This was featured on HackaDay a while back. Some cool documentaries in the
comments:

[http://hackaday.com/2013/10/29/retrotechtacular-
automata/](http://hackaday.com/2013/10/29/retrotechtacular-automata/)

------
nzp
There are two other, though not as complex:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaquet-
Droz_automata](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaquet-Droz_automata)

------
v-yadli
About the second video in the page: I finally know where the name of Amazon
MTurk comes from, now. :-D

------
v-yadli
This is a machine that works on fixed length strings with fixed alphabet, and
accepts all strings. Thus it's not a computer. Of course, the side effect of
execution is amazing.

------
javajosh
If you are impressed with intricate work, than you'd be more impressed with
virtually any piece of software written today. 6000 parts? Programs routinely
have that many object instances - and usually far more. Indeed, many programs
have that many _classes_. When you include runtime dependencies like the OS or
database, you're _average_ application is several orders of magnitude more
intricate and complex.

That is not to say that The Writer is not a unique accomplishment. It truly is
- to succeed in creating something that complex in physical objects, and
without the helping constraints that modern programers labor under is
remarkable and laudable. But if you are a fan of intricate work, you can find
much better examples in modern software (not to mention CPU design).

EDIT: down-vote me all you want, assholes.

~~~
darkmighty
This sort of comment that makes me uncomfortable. I don't understand the
insistence that everything you do has to be harder than everything else, or
that this doesn't have any meaning because modern engineering is harder.

You see, you should be bragging that modern programming is _easier_. The whole
point of evolving engineering is to make things easier -- what would be modern
science and engineering good for if we had to build things this complicated
from scratch?

People (rational people, that is) don't choose a framework or method of doing
things because it's _hard_ ; in fact, quite the opposite, they obviously go
for the easier ones! The merit should be -- look what I can achieve with such
beautiful simplicity. It is trivial to conceive a harder way of doing almost
everything.

In fact, if you look at the automata shown here, almost anyone with a tiny bit
of programming knowledge and some hardware knowledge could build something
similar with an arduino and some stepper motors.

~~~
javajosh
_> I don't understand the insistence that everything you do has to be harder
than everything else_

Where did I say that? Someone who appreciates intricacy should know that
modern automata (e.g. software) is actually more intricate, by far, than
antique automata.

It's just you'd never see a documentary piece like this on a piece of
software, and I think it's _only_ because software is a) not physical, and b)
difficult to visualize.

