
Programming the ENIAC: an example of why computer history is hard - ingve
http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/programming-the-eniac-an-example-of-why-computer-history-is-hard/
======
stevetrewick
Great read.

> _no one challenged the status of the stored program as the defining feature
> of the modern digital electronic computer”, but “we struggle when required
> to articulate its significance in simple terms "_

Are we? Then it's probably because we're being dishonest about using it to
keep score of which machine was 'first'. Like the article says : 'first
computer', 'first electronic computer', 'first electronic stored program
computer'. Throw a handful of 'general purpose' in there and you've got a
spectrum of candidates from the old astronomy tools through the difference
engine through the Z3 to the Mark I. Honestly, the only time I ever hear or
read anyone say 'first stored program...' is as a presage to claiming that the
MkI was first so ra ra, we beat the yanks.

------
hcs
> Even before ENIAC was finished, engineers realized that there was a much
> better centralized way to control such a complex machine, using coded
> instructions stored in memory and "executed" in sequence.

> For a discussion of how it was different from earlier ideas, see Tom Haigh’s
> recent article "Where Code Comes From".

This article links to "Where Code Comes From" at CACM, but beyond an excerpt
it is members-only. Here's the full article on the author's web site (PDF):

[http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/WhereCodeComesFromCAC...](http://www.tomandmaria.com/Tom/Writing/WhereCodeComesFromCACM.pdf)

~~~
dang
Wow, that looks great. I highly recommend that you submit it as an article in
its own right, perhaps tomorrow, so as not to be too close to this thread.

------
colinthompson
This is such an interesting article to me because it describes a time when a
fundamentally unique paradigm of computer science was in it's nascent form. It
makes me wonder, were people aware of the watershed nature of their work at
the time?

Are there new paradigms being worked on now, that we are aware of, which have
a similar significance?

I suppose it may be hard to see such a thing in the moment, but it sure is fun
to think about.

~~~
mathgenius
Yes, it's happening:
[http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum/](http://www.research.ibm.com/quantum/)

------
mikejmoffitt
This was an interesting read, but I thought the description of the Von
Neuman's architectural decision to address program instructions and data in
the same address space was a little hasty - perhaps introducing the Harvard
architecture or another with separate spaces would help with the argument for
ENIAC categorically being a computer.

------
Animats
It's all about memory devices.

IBM had been doing arithmetic electromechanically for decades, and mechanical
digital calculators go back centuries. It was clear by the 1940s that you
could do arithmetic with vacuum tubes; IBM produced the IBM 603 Electronic
Multiplier[1] as a product in 1946, and they'd been working on that before
WWII. It was clear that you could have programmed sequence control of
arithmetic, if you could figure out how to store and access the program. But
nobody had a cheap random-access storage device yet.

There were lots of ideas, most of them marginal. IBM had been using plugboards
for decades. Atanasoff used capacitors, but had to use a mechanical drum type
rotary switch to connect to them. The ENIAC used tubes, plugboards, and rotary
switches. The Manchester Baby used a Williams tube, a CRT-derived storage
device, but they only got 32 words of 32 bits out of it. Bigger Williams tube
machines were built later, but the size was huge for the data stored. EDVAC
used mercury tank delay lines, as did UNIVAC I. Metal delay lines, long metal
rods with transducers at each end, were tried. Some low-end computers with
drum main memory were built. Of these, only the Williams tube was random
access.

In 1951, MIT built Whirlwind, the first computer with magnetic core memory.
This was the first good memory component. Good speed, true random access, more
compact than the alternatives. But not cheap. Core memory was very expensive
to manufacture (a million dolars for a megabyte) until IBM figured out how to
build a machine to weave it automatically.[2] Core memory powered most of the
machines of the late 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, until semiconductor RAM
finally worked.

Building early computers wasn't a conceptual problem. Lots of people had
workable ideas about how to do it. It wasn't a problem with electronic
arithmetic; that had been done. But there were no good memory technologies
yet.

It's been mostly forgotten, but in the late 1950s and 1960s, there were a
whole range of special purpose machines built which were not general purpose
digital computers, but did some specific function with digital electronics.
Reservisor did airline reservations. Teleregister had special purpose systems
for stockbrokers, airlines, railroad companies, and inventory control.[3]
These were all hard-wired and stored most of their data on magnetic drums or
plugboards. All this was a workaround for expensive memory. Once memory got
cheap, those special purpose machines disappeared.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_603](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_603)
[2]
[http://ibm-1401.info/IBMCoreArraysIEEEMagnetics1969.pdf](http://ibm-1401.info/IBMCoreArraysIEEEMagnetics1969.pdf)
[3]
[http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Teleregist...](http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Teleregister/Teleregister.SpecialPurposeSystems.1956.102646324.pdf)

~~~
hga
To amplify how desperate people were for memory, back before the Whirlwind
people came up with 3D core memory they were considering among other things a
microwave version of mercury delay lines, running a signal out to western
Massachusetts and back. All that and lots more in this gem of a book:
[http://www.amazon.com/Project-Whirlwind-History-Pioneer-
Comp...](http://www.amazon.com/Project-Whirlwind-History-Pioneer-
Computer/dp/0932376096)

------
avmich
> We depend heavily on contemporary written documents; as the ancient Chinese
> proverb says, “The palest ink is better than the best memory.”

I wonder if that's the best possible approach :) . You see, those documents
are written by those unreliable people too...

------
basicplus2
Sounds more like the problem is a lack of definition of terms.

~~~
krallja
Well, that, and the definition of terms is necessarily being done by the same
people who are trying to answer questions raised after-the-fact.

------
readams
> “Who invented the computer?” A 20-year-old might say “Steve Jobs."

It may well be a complex question of who invented the computer. But I think
it's safe to say that it was certainly not Steve Jobs.

~~~
mwfunk
It's also safe to say that no one would give that answer to that question. I
mean, I'm sure there are tons of people on the Internet who complain about
other people thinking that, I just don't necessarily think those other people
actually exist in meaningful numbers.

I've come to a similar opinion about people who see "SJWs" all around them. I
see people complain about SJWs all the time, but the complaining seems to be
about imaginary people who mainly exist as caricatures in their heads. I live
in the Bay Area and I don't think I've seen anything resembling an SJW in the
wild, aside from some isolated individual posting angry rants to Tumblr.

~~~
MichaelGG
In SF I've witnessed, first hand, people accusing others of "cultural
appropriation" which is about as silly as you can get. I only visit now and
then though, so I don't know if a lot of people are like this or I just had an
unlucky experience. But look at Github and their racist and sexist policies
disguised under "social justice" (their words). It's safe to assume those
people live there and actually believe those things.

Sure though, it might not be "all around them", unless they're at college.

~~~
mwfunk
Oh I don't deny any of those incidents or that such people exist and have been
responsible for some bad things, but in my experience for every actual SJW
stereotype that exists in the world, there are hundreds or thousands of very
vocal people who dedicate utterly tremendous amounts of time, energy, and
vitriol to public hand-wringing about such people.

Oddly enough, the people who put the most time and energy into publicly
venting about racism and sexism practiced in the name of social justice don't
seem to spend much of their remaining time fighting against other forms racism
and sexism. Oddly enough, by some strange coincidence, the more likely someone
is to point their finger at a conspiracy of SJWs for being a meaningful source
of racism and sexism in the world, the less that same person seems to be
concerned about racism and sexism in other forms.

To me it often comes across as little more than one group of people taking
pleasure in hating on another (possibly imaginary) group of people, sort of
like football rivalries for people who aren't into sports. Unlike football
rivalries, it actually influences how the general population thinks about real
world issues, which sucks, because voters need to have as much clarity as
possible. Otherwise we end up doing things like naming Donald Trump as one of
two options for one of the most powerful and influential political offices in
the world.

Sorry HN, I fully deserve and accept downvotes for offtopic political ranting.
This has just been a peeve of mine lately.

