On Fri, Jan 02, 2026 at 09:56:24AM -0500, Dean Notarnicola via vcf-midatlantic wrote:
Well stated. The question of so-called ?firsts? is very subjective, which is why I generally prefer histories that go back far enough to show the very early development stages of a given technology. This is far more educational, as it tends to answer more of the ?what, why and how?, and lets the reader establish their own opinion on what may be ?firsts?.
Indeed. Everyone has different things that interest them about computers. For some, it's the idea that you can do calculations much faster with electronics than earlier techniques. For some, it's the applications that can be run on them. For some, it's the experience of programming. For me, it's the universality of Turing completeness. Machines that aren't Turing complete are significantly less interesting to me, to the point that I've come to characterize Computer Science as the study of phenomena surrounding universal machines in the same sense that physics is the study of phenomena surrounding elementary particles and forces. While the question of whether it is made from gears, relays, tubes, or transistors is interesting, for me it's orthogonal to the fundamental nature of the machine. Once one has Shannon's demonstration of the equivalence of Boolean functions and switching, it's tivial to see that all mechanisms of switching are equivalent. For me, it's the fundamental nature of universal machines that makes them a subject worthy of study. None of this is to dismiss anyone else's areas of interest, but rather to explain why the chain of influential ideas is more interesting to me than any question of firsts. BLS