It's on Kindle. Just go buy it now. The Ada stuff is in Chapter 4, location 1841. It won't disappoint.
What's even cooler is that her program had no bugs.
Outside that environment, so much of programming is actually arrogant dudes standing around and telling other dudes they're doing it wrong.
It seems patently obvious to me that mainstream software development culture is a turn off to people who don't want to play that game.
Or to put it another way, many women love doing Sudoku puzzles. But if solving Sudoku puzzles suddenly became economically productive and a huge market for Sudoku-solving professionals suddenly sprung up, I bet the vast majority of jobs in the industry would suddenly be filled with young men with limited social skills but l33t Sudoku abilities.
Ada Lovelace had the good fortune to live when computer programming was a drawing room game for well-brought-up young ladies.
Princeton's President Shirley Tilghman once said the following and I think it's a fitting quote that speaks directly to people like you.
"There are 25 years of good social science that demonstrate the many cultural practices that act collectively to discourage women from entering and continuing careers in science and engineering. The research is overwhelming, and it is there for anybody to see. On the other hand, the data that would suggest there are innate differences in the abilities of men and women to succeed in the natural sciences are nonexistent."
Expressing false ideas is not without cost. We have generation after generation of young women who are socially and culturally conditioned into believing that they're are unsuited for careers in science and engineering. The grandfather is another example of one the many insidious ways in which this happens. As a result, I believe it's completely unacceptable to speculate on these matters, especially when all you have to offer are some sexist opinions unsupported by data.
Furthermore, the labeling of the post as sexist is not a "taboo thought-crime", it's a statement of fact. The OP is clearly claiming that young men are better suited to succeed at programming today than women. What is this if not "a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women?" 
 (sexist) male chauvinist: a man with a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women
It's a debatable empirical question whether men or women have any innate advantage (or are statistically more likely to have an advantage) in any given field. If the evidence points one way, does that make reality sexist?
Young men are better suited to succeed at professional football today than women. What is this if not "a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women?" Simple answer: it's an objective fact.
I find it amazingly unlikely that men and women are identically suited to every type of work. Men and women have historically, on evolutionary time scales, focussed on different types of activities.
You say "I believe it's completely unacceptable to speculate on these matter". That is labeling something as an unacceptable thought. You're saying "I don't care what reality it, my morality trumps reality." You are advocating creating categories of taboo thought crime. I suggest you either reconsider the implications of you views, or admit that this is what you are advocating.
I said I'm against unsupported speculation, not against data. We have plenty of good reasons, supported by data, to believe that men make better professional footballers.
I am not aware of any peer-reviewed study that shows men are better suited to computer programming that women. What I said was that throwing around speculation in the absence of data was prejudice and I stand by this.
I also did not make the claim that men and women are equally suited to every type of activity. However, making the leap from "there might be some activities for which men are statistically better than women" to "computer programming is once such activity", especially in the absence of evidence in the form of rigorous peer-reviewed studies supporting your position, is sexism.
That is labeling something as an unacceptable thought.
You're free to think what you want. However, I suggest that you examine your thoughts closely and study whether there is any truth to them before posting them on a public forum. I'm asking for honesty not thought-policing.
Vague statements with no justification or data; just as subjective as someone "feeling" the other way.
> "I suggest you either reconsider the implications of you views, or admit that this is what you are advocating."
False dichotomy. The parent has many options: to do neither, to clarify the context you stripped from the quote, or perhaps offer the data this discussion is lacking.
Here is a paper to jump-start the discussion about achievement gaps in general, which talks about ethnicity and gender:
Now we can make substantiated claims and attack ideas, not each other.
Like I said: Sudoku is fun when you do it for ten minutes a day. But doing it for a living would alienate the vast majority of people, and I'm fairly sure that the few who would be left to fill in those square for $120K a year would be mostly men.
But doing it for a living would alienate the vast majority of people
As I said before these are just unsupported claims. And even if these claims were true, this doesn't mean that there is any genetic predisposition of any sort. In short, there's a lot of data to be gathered and analyzed before one confidently make such claims. In the absence of this data, claims like these are also known by the word prejudice.
I reiterate that I believe that your statements perpetuate cultural stereotypes that discourage women from entering careers in science and engineering.
I'd rather you didn't throw these unsupported claims out that IMHO serve no constructive purpose and simply muddy the water with apparently sexist views.
A link to the research instead of a quote from someone asserting research exists would have been a stronger reply.
A relevant paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/8/3157.full
Her notes on the engine include what is recognised as
the first algorithm intended to be processed by a
machine; as such she is sometimes portrayed as the
"World's First Computer Programmer".
Calling Lovelace the first programmer has always seemed
a bit silly because surely Babbage would have written
some programs for his machine. But recognizing her for
"Lovelace's Leap" seems far more realistic.
Is it clear from primary sources whether this should be called Lovelace's Leap, Luigi's Leap, or even Babbage's Bound?
Really, though, I'm surprised you'd want to consider doing it. These "numbers" sound far too involved and elaborate for the lambda calculi and their children. Better stick to the tasks functional programming was designed for, like writing fixpoint combinators and being snide in comment threads. ;)