Timeline for Who was the first programmer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2012 at 3:25 | comment | added | Jim In Texas | @YannisRizos - I have actually programmed analog computers. They are general purpose machines that can be used to solve many different problems. The Antikythera has been pretty clearly determined to be a very fancy clock. A clock isn't a computer, analog or digital. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 19:48 | comment | added | yannis | @JimInTexas The Antikythera mechanism is generally accepted as a form of analog computer. The fact that the programming is only done once (during construction) doesn't make it less of a computer, in that respect the mechanism is no different than Alan Turing's Bombe or the Atanasoff–Berry Computer. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 16:22 | comment | added | Gary | @JimInTexas OK - edited to accept your dispute | |
| May 23, 2012 at 16:22 | history | edited | Gary | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Removing the undisputed reference |
| May 23, 2012 at 16:18 | comment | added | Gary | @mike Hmm, that reminds me of the analog computer in Neal Stephenson's "Cryptonomicon". That was created out of pipe organ parts. What about programming genes by means of a DNA computer? | |
| May 23, 2012 at 16:10 | comment | added | mike30 | @Jim In Texas. An algorithm can be represented physically in the hardware itself. Creating and representing the algorithm in some form is programming. You can program with wooden sticks, using water flow as the "current" or equivalent of electricity. The "programming" occurs while making the machine, rather than afterwards. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 15:47 | comment | added | Jim In Texas | I dispute that the Antikythera mechanism was a computer, hence it's not undisputed!! As brilliant a device as it was, it was really just a very clever clock. It's machine fabrication technology was about 500-1000 years ahead of its time, but it was in no way 'programmable'. Clocks are not computers. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 14:25 | comment | added | JeffO | I say if Archimedes had to deal with one person who recommended a change, he's a programmer. Whether he could make the change or not isn't imporatant (This may also be the first use of YAGNI.). | |
| May 23, 2012 at 14:19 | comment | added | abx78 | It looks like we're debating more on WHAT IS A PROGRAMMER. Someone who creates a mechanism embedding in it some logic isn't a programmer? I believe he is, you can't say otherwise just because you can't change that logic | |
| May 23, 2012 at 14:17 | comment | added | thorsten müller | You made an interesting point, but I think this would only be valid (my humble opinion), if you declare the real world to be the ultimate Turing Machine (which then can be programmed by our activities). In this case nearly any toolmaking or processing would be "programming". | |
| May 23, 2012 at 14:15 | comment | added | yannis | @Gary You may be on very thin ice, but I couldn't resist my Greek pride and upvoted your answer ;) | |
| May 23, 2012 at 14:14 | comment | added | Mason Wheeler | @Gary: One important distinction for programmability, at least as it's understood today, is that the program exists independent of the hardware. The Antikythera mechanism was "hard-coded" to calculate one thing, but there was no way to input other programs. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 14:11 | history | edited | yannis | CC BY-SA 3.0 | edited body |
| May 23, 2012 at 14:04 | comment | added | Gary | @YannisRizos Yeah, I'm on very thin ice with this one. I'm sure the community overall will settle on Ada Lovelace as the clear winner, but I just wanted to present a case for alternative consideration. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 13:56 | comment | added | yannis | Although a connection to Archimedes is implied, the claim that he is "tentatively credited with the creation of the Antikythera mechanism" is quite a bold one (yes, I didn't miss tentatively). | |
| May 23, 2012 at 13:48 | comment | added | Gary | I disagree, I think that programming is "the process of designing, writing, testing, debugging, and maintaining the source code of computer programs". In this case the source code is the paper and blueprints to create and operate the device. Since he potentially created the device, he qualifies under that definition. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 13:38 | comment | added | Oded | My point is that a computational device does not a programmable computer make. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 13:36 | comment | added | Gary | No, but the starting points are and that constitutes a calculation which is essentially all a program is. Think of it as find_event(x) and Archimedes chose and entered x. He also, potentially, built the hardware to support the implementation of find_event(x). | |
| May 23, 2012 at 13:32 | comment | added | Oded | The mechanism is not programmable. | |
| May 23, 2012 at 13:31 | history | answered | Gary | CC BY-SA 3.0 |