November 2013 - Members - lists.sigcis.org

2nd CfP History and Philosophy of Programming
by Liesbeth De Mol 18 Nov '13

18 Nov '13

Dear all, the second call for papers for the second symposium on the history and philosophy of programming is now out. If anyone of you is interested to contribute something, please do submit a (short) paper, my very best wishes, Liesbeth. /APOLOGIES FOR MULTIPLE POSTINGS/ ---------------------------------------------------------- Second Call for Papers Second Symposium on History and Philosophy of Programming www.computing-conference.ugent.be/hapop2 Organised by the Commission for the History and Philosophy of Computing www.hapoc.org At AISB-50, Goldsmiths, London 1-4, April 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------- As part of the AISB-50 Annual Convention 2014 to be held at Goldsmiths, University of London, on April 1st--4th 2014 www.aisb.org.uk/events/aisb14 The convention is organised by the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour (AISB) http://www.aisb.org.uk/ *Overview* The history and philosophy of computing only started to develop as real disciplines in the '80s and '90s of the previous century, with the foundation of journals (e.g. the IEEE Annals on the History of Computing, Minds and Machines and the like) and associations (SIGCIS, IACAP, . . . ), and the organization of conferences and workshops on a regular basis. A historical awareness of the evolution of computing not only helps to clarify the complex structure of the computing sciences, but it also provides an insight in what computing was, is and maybe could be in the future. Philosophy, on the other hand, helps to tackle some of the fundamental problems of computing. The aim of this symposium is to zoom into one fundamental aspect of computing, that is the foundational and the historical problems and developments related to the science of programming. This is the Second Symposium on History and Philosophy of Programming, following the first edition organized in 2012 at the AISB/IACAP Joint Convention in Birmingham, UK. A historical awareness of the evolution of computing not only helps to clarify the complex structure of the computing sciences, but it also provides an insight in what computing was, is and maybe could be in the future. Philosophy, on the other hand, helps to tackle some of the fundamental problems of computing. The aim of this symposium is to zoom into one fundamental aspect of computing, that is the foundational and the historical problems and developments related to programming. *Topics of Interest* That a logico-mathematical-physical object called program is so controversial, even though its very nature is mostly hidden away, is rooted in the range of problems, processes and objects that can be solved, simulated, approximated and generated by way of its execution. Given its widespread impact on our lives, it becomes a responsibility of the philosopher and the historian to study the science of programming. The historical and philosophical reflection on the science of programming is the main topic at the core of this workshop and we expect contributions (talks) in the following aspects (and their connections): 1. The history of computational systems, machines and programs 2. Foundational issues and paradigms of programming 3. Methodology of designing, teaching and learning programming We believe the scientific community needs a deep understanding and critical view of the problems related to the scientific paradigm represented by the science of programming. Possible and in no way exclusive questions that might be of relevance to this Symposium are: . What was and is the relation between hardware and software developments? . How did the notion of 'program' changed since the 40s? . How important has been the hands-off vs. the hands-on approach for the development of programming? . How did models of computability like Church's lambda-calculus influence the development of programming languages? . Is programming a science or a technology? . What are the novel and most interesting approaches to the design of programs? . What is correctness for a program? Issues in Type-checking, Model-checking, etc. . How do we understand programs as syntactical-semantical objects? . What is the nature of the relation between algorithms and programs? What is a program? . How can epistemology profit from the understanding of programs' behavior and structure? . What legal and socio-economical issues are involved in the creation, patenting or free-distribution of programs? . How is programming to be taught? *Submission and Publication Details* Submissions must be full (short) papers and should be sent via EasyChair: https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=hapop2 Text editor templates from a previous convention can be found at: http://www.aisb.org.uk/convention/aisb08/download.html We request that submitted papers are limited to eight pages. Each paper will receive at least two reviews. Selected papers will be published in the general proceedings of the AISB Convention, with the proviso that at least ONE author attends the symposium in order to present the paper and participate in general symposium activities. *Important Dates* Full paper submission deadline: 3 January 2014 Notification of acceptance/rejections: 6 February 2014 Final version of accepted papers: 24 february 2014 Symposium Date: 4 April 2014 *Additional Information* Please note that there will be separate proceedings for each symposium, produced before the convention. Each delegate will receive a memory stick containing the proceedings of all the symposia. In previous years there have been awards for the best student paper, and limited student bursaries. These details will be circulated as and when they become available. Authors of a selection of the best papers will be invited to submit an extended version of the work to a journal special issue. *Symposium organisers* dr. Liesbeth De Mol elizabeth.demol(a)ugent.be website:http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/sitespersonnels/DeMol/index.html UMR 8163 - Savoir, Textes, Languages Université de Lille 3 Bt.B4 Rue du Barreau BP 60149 59653 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex, France dr. Giuseppe Primiero G.Primiero(a)mdx.ac.uk website:http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/people/giuseppe-primiero/ Department of Computer Science Middlesex University the Borroughs NW4 4BT, London, UK *Symposium Website:* www.computing-conference.ugent.be/hapop2 *Programme Committee:* G. Alberts (Amsterdam) M. Campbell-Kelly (Warwick) L. Corry (Tel Aviv) L. de Mol (Lille) H. Durnova (Brno) R. Kahle (Lisbon) B. Loewe (Amsterdam) G. Primiero (Middlesex London) M. Tedre (Helsinki) R. Turner (Essex)

1 0

FW from Eckstein re "In 1946, Bartik headed up a team that modified the ENIAC into the first stored-program electronic computer."
by Thomas Haigh 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

[Looks like Peter fell victim to a listserv issue, but here is a message he tried to send to everyone.] From: PeterEckstein(a)comcast.net [mailto:PeterEckstein@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 10:42 PM To: thaigh(a)computer.org Cc: sigcis Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] "In 1946, Bartik headed up a team that modified the ENIAC into the first stored-program electronic computer." I do not have any information either to substantiate or to contradict Tom's correction on the timing and Jean Bartik's role in building a stored-program capability into the ENIAC. I am, however, a little put off by his first sentence: "Post-conversion ENIAC did acquire the new control method introduced in the 1945 'First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC'." The new control method may have been "introduced" to the wider world by the "First Draft," on which von Neumann's name is the only indication of authorship and which, in its written form, he (together with Goldstine) prepared. But the "First Draft" was not how the method was introduced to the ENIAC team; rather, the paper reflected intensive discussions that had gone on within the ENIAC team and in which von Neumann sometimes participated. (Eckert, Mauchly, Carl Chambers, and perhaps Arthur Burks and Reid Warren, as I am remembering it off the top of my head, were other participants.) As early as January, 1944, Eckert had put to paper his notion that for the next computer, which came to be called EDVAC, the greater availability of adequate storage techniques (work to which Eckert had contributed) would allow "automatic programming of the facilities and processes involved." Von Neumann, by contrast, did not begin visiting the ENIAC project until September. As Nancy Stern put it, "Thus, months before von Neumann know of the Moore School work, the stored-program concept had been conceived, if not developed." (From ENIAC to UNIVAC, p. 75.) I strongly suspect, but do not have time now to substantiate, that the group planning the EDVAC was well under way before von Neumann joined it. The ENIAC team was constrained by Army security regulations from making its work public, but von Neumann did not feel similarly constrained, and I know of no occasion on which he acknowledged the role of the group whose work he was summarizing n his First Draft. He contributed to the group's work, and his summary of it was considered highly elegant, but neither he nor the First Draft served to "introduce" the new control method to those modifying the ENIAC to be accept stored programs. _____ From: "Thomas Haigh" <thaigh(a)computer.org> To: "sigcis" <members(a)sigcis.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 6:25:46 PM Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] "In 1946, Bartik headed up a team that modified the ENIAC into the first stored-program electronic computer." There is an interesting sentence in the publisher's blub for Bartik's book: "In 1946, Bartik headed up a team that modified the ENIAC into the first stored-program electronic computer." Nothing in any way controversial there... [Pause] .... except for 1) Post-conversion ENIAC did acquire the new control method introduced in the 1945 "First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC." Having looked at this conversion very closely, in association with my work on the topic with Mark Priestley and Crispin Rope, I'm probably more sympathetic to the general direction of the claim than most of you. However, that's also convinced me that "stored program computer" has been given too many different implicit definitions for that to be a prudent, or even meaningful, claim to make without at least attaching some kind of adjective to modify "stored program." (ENIAC essentially held instructions and data in an addressable manually erasable ROM while storing variables in a separate set of registers. It had other modern features including conditional branches and used indirect addressing so that the address acted on by an instruction could be modified at runtime). 2) The work took place in 1947 and 1948 rather than 1946. 3) Bartik played a role as a subcontractor but was not, by any stretch of the imagination, leading the effort. Those of you interested in learning more on this topic will enjoy our series of three forthcoming articles in Annals and our book in progress "ENIAC in Action: von Neumann, the Bomb, and the Programming Revolution." Meanwhile, I am curious to see how well the book itself aligns with the mass of archival sources on ENIAC. It will, in any event, provide some grist for one of our book chapters, "Remembering ENIAC." Tom -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces(a)sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Evan Koblentz Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:19 PM To: sigcis Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Bartik autobiography available / Colossus name? SIGCIS'ers, Jean Bartik's autobiography is now available at http://tsup.truman.edu/item.asp?itemid=480. There is also an e-book version at Amazon. (I recently learned that Kindle books can be read through a browser or through an iOS/Android app -- you don't need a Kindle device.) Also: Does anyone know how the British Colossus computer got its name, other than the general assumption "because it was big"...? I emailed TNMOC about this. They wrote back and said they don't know and that nobody ever asked. _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members(a)sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members(a)sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

1 0

Bartik autobiography available / Colossus name?
by Evan Koblentz 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

SIGCIS'ers, Jean Bartik's autobiography is now available at http://tsup.truman.edu/item.asp?itemid=480. There is also an e-book version at Amazon. (I recently learned that Kindle books can be read through a browser or through an iOS/Android app -- you don't need a Kindle device.) Also: Does anyone know how the British Colossus computer got its name, other than the general assumption "because it was big"...? I emailed TNMOC about this. They wrote back and said they don't know and that nobody ever asked.

2 1

Mavis Batey was Bletchley Park codebreaker whose Enigma breakthrough proved crucial to the success of D-Day
by Bernardo Batiz-Lazo 14 Nov '13

14 Nov '13

Here is an obit that some might find of interest Mavis Batey was Bletchley Park codebreaker whose Enigma breakthrough proved crucial to the success of D-Day http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/military-obituaries/special-forc… Best wishes Bernardo Bangor University (Wales) -----

1 0

"In 1946, Bartik headed up a team that modified the ENIAC into the first stored-program electronic computer."
by Thomas Haigh 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

There is an interesting sentence in the publisher's blub for Bartik's book: "In 1946, Bartik headed up a team that modified the ENIAC into the first stored-program electronic computer." Nothing in any way controversial there... [Pause] .... except for 1) Post-conversion ENIAC did acquire the new control method introduced in the 1945 "First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC." Having looked at this conversion very closely, in association with my work on the topic with Mark Priestley and Crispin Rope, I'm probably more sympathetic to the general direction of the claim than most of you. However, that's also convinced me that "stored program computer" has been given too many different implicit definitions for that to be a prudent, or even meaningful, claim to make without at least attaching some kind of adjective to modify "stored program." (ENIAC essentially held instructions and data in an addressable manually erasable ROM while storing variables in a separate set of registers. It had other modern features including conditional branches and used indirect addressing so that the address acted on by an instruction could be modified at runtime). 2) The work took place in 1947 and 1948 rather than 1946. 3) Bartik played a role as a subcontractor but was not, by any stretch of the imagination, leading the effort. Those of you interested in learning more on this topic will enjoy our series of three forthcoming articles in Annals and our book in progress "ENIAC in Action: von Neumann, the Bomb, and the Programming Revolution." Meanwhile, I am curious to see how well the book itself aligns with the mass of archival sources on ENIAC. It will, in any event, provide some grist for one of our book chapters, "Remembering ENIAC." Tom -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces(a)sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Evan Koblentz Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 4:19 PM To: sigcis Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Bartik autobiography available / Colossus name? SIGCIS'ers, Jean Bartik's autobiography is now available at http://tsup.truman.edu/item.asp?itemid=480. There is also an e-book version at Amazon. (I recently learned that Kindle books can be read through a browser or through an iOS/Android app -- you don't need a Kindle device.) Also: Does anyone know how the British Colossus computer got its name, other than the general assumption "because it was big"...? I emailed TNMOC about this. They wrote back and said they don't know and that nobody ever asked. _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members(a)sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

1 0

query update: de/classification at govt archives re sci/tech
by Sharon Traweek 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

Hi My sincerely thanks to all who have responded to my query Monday concerning research on the history of de/classification processes pursued by historians, archivists, etc. [See below.] I have been aware of and impressed by the scholars who are conducting research on cold war science and engineering fields/projects and in so doing have worked to open previously re/classified government documents on their topics of interest. I also have been aware of and impressed by the archivists, historians, lawyers, engineers, and scientists who have persisted in opening previously classified government documents. I teach about their work and the relevant organizations. I have been looking for historical surveys, reviews, and analyses of these research processes during the last twenty years, at least, in the US, as well as other countries, such as China, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Japan, Korea, Soviet Union, Sweden, UK, etc, where sci/tech research & development would have been strongly shaped by the cold war. I was taught long ago that for 50 years [early 40s to early 90s] about 50% of the S&T workforce with 50% of national R&D funding worked on clandestine projects in the US and the former Soviet Union. I try to teach students how historians have been investigating that half of our topic and its relationship with the other half. I use various examples from the work of historians and archivists; I would like to include surveys, reviews, and analyses of these process. Sincerely, Sharon Traweek, UCLA ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 16:39:52 -0800 (PST) From: Sharon Traweek <traweek(a)history.ucla.edu> To: members(a)sigcis.org Subject: de/classification of US government archives re sci/technology Hi, I would appreciate references to any scholarly studies focused specifically on the opening of US cold war government archives of classified [secret] research in the sciences and engineering fields. I have searched for a review article on this topic, including the changing US government strategies for de/classification, but have not found one. That is, I am looking for research on the history of the de/classification process at US government archives 1945 to the present and public access to such materials concerning science and technology. I am aware of passages on this topic distributed in various histories of particular cold war sciences and technologies and in some histories and legal studies of the US Freedom of Information Act of 1966 and the relevant Presidential Executive Orders [12958/13292/13526] on this topic issued since 1995. Cordially, Sharon Traweek, UCLA

1 0

The history of the Research Machines 380Z
by Tony Smith 13 Nov '13

13 Nov '13

Ladies and gentlemen, Those of you with an interest in the story of British microcomputer technology may like to take a look at my history of one of the earliest and most important education micros of the 1970s and early 1980s: the Research Machines 380Z. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/11/13/archaeologic_the_research_machines_… Tony Smith Features Editor The Register http://www.theregister.co.uk

1 0

Presidential Records on ICTs
by John Paul Laprise 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Hi everyone, Sharon Traweek's recent post on the SIGCIS listserv about declassification and US government records has prompted me to make a general announcement. I've mentioned this to some of you in conference conversations or you probably are aware of this if you've run across my work but I'd like to make a general announcement for all: For the past eleven years (six years as a grad student and going on five years as a faculty member), I have been pursuing ongoing research on White House information technology policy. To that end, I have been filing regular and persistent requests at Presidential Libraries (Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (present)) for documents related to a very wide range of ICT keywords. The keyword list is a living list informed by research. In some cases, these records are available but not yet opened and my filing has the effect of fast tracking their availability. In some cases I've filed numerous Freedom of Information Act requests and subsequent appeals to open closed record sets. With classified documents I've filed mandatory review requests and subsequent appeals to declassify records. This takes time and persistence. The end result is that in excess of 200k pages of documents are opened that were not previously available on request. This work continues as the Bush Library comes online and I have made the initial requests to open records there. The long and short of this is that there is a very rich documentary record open and available to interested scholars. Best regards, John Laprise, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Communication in Residence Northwestern University in Qatar Northwestern University -----Original Message----- From: members-bounces(a)sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of Sharon Traweek Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 3:40 AM To: members(a)sigcis.org Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] de/classification of US government archives re sci/technology Hi, I would appreciate references to any scholarly studies focused specifically on the opening of US cold war government archives of classified [secret] research in the sciences and engineering fields. I have searched for a review article on this topic, including the changing US government strategies for de/classification, but have not found one. That is, I am looking for research on the history of the de/classification process at US government archives 1945 to the present and public access to such materials concerning science and technology. I am aware of passages on this topic distributed in various histories of particular cold war sciences and technologies and in some histories and legal studies of the US Freedom of Information Act of 1966 and the relevant Presidential Executive Orders [12958/13292/13526] on this topic issued since 1995. Cordially, Sharon Traweek, UCLA _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members(a)sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://sigcis.org/pipermail/members/ and you can change your subscription options at http://sigcis.org/mailman/listinfo/members

2 1

First usage of the word "subroutine"?
by Thomas Haigh 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Hello everyone, I'm wondering if anyone has pinned down the origin of the word "subroutine." OED currently has as the first two example usages: c1946 H. H. Goldstine & J. Von Neumann in J. Von Neumann Coll. Wks. (1961) V. 25 Both..machines are controlled by instructions punched into several tapes and they can be ordered to switch from one to the other as desired. They are usually referred to as 'master routine' and 'sub-routine' tapes. [The ellipsis hide reference to the Harvard Mark 1 and to the Bell Labs relay machines]. 1948 H. H. Goldstine & J. Von Neumann in J. Von Neumann Coll. Wks. (1963) V. 217 We call the coded sequence of a problem a routine, and one which is formed for the purpose of possible substitution into other routines a subroutine. In my work on ENIAC with Mark Priestley and Crispin Rope we have located an earlier (1945) usage in the "AMP Report" authored by members of the ENIAC team. "It is possible to have the main routine divided into sub-routines, in which case one stepper is used to feed another stepper, thus allowing the proper sub-routine to be chosen in the course of a regular routine." J. P. Eckert, J. W. Mauchly, H. H. Goldstine, and J. G. Brainerd, Description of the ENIAC and Comments on Electronic Digital Machines. AMP Report 171.2R. Distributed by the Applied Mathematics Panel, National Defense Research Committee, November 30. Philadelphia, PA: Moore School of Electrical Engineering, 1945. I'm also aware that the term has been applied in later usage to useful blocks of code saved and copied into programs as needed on the Harvard Mark 1, e.g. in K. W. Beyer, Grace Hopper and the Invention of the Information Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009 pages 95-106. That fits in the general sense with the 1946 von Neumann quote, although the Harvard Mark 1 did not in 1945 have the ability to switch to a second tape and was instead confined to running like a player piano over a single series of instructions. I did not spot any quotation of the actual word "subroutine" from 1945 or 1946 sources in Beyer's book. His citations in that section all come from much later oral histories and reminiscences, not from 1940s documents. (Also Beyer seems unaware of the refinement of the idea by von Neumann and his colleagues in the 1948 installment of the "Planning and Coding" report, instead considering only the transfer of ideas to the EDSAC team in the UK). So, my questions are: 1) Does anyone have a documented usage prior to November 1945 of the word "subroutine" or the hyphenated "sub-routine"? 2) Are there primary sources that will tell us whether the use of "routine" to describe a program was standard terminology at Harvard, at Bell Labs, or at both? I'd expect the coinage of "subroutine" to come naturally at a site in which programs were called "routines" and less so elsewhere. Best wishes, Tom

2 1

my "take" on Obamacare
by Ceruzzi, Paul 08 Nov '13

08 Nov '13

I published this brief note on Obamacare as an on-line op-ed for the HIastory News Network. <http://hnn.us/article/153810>. As the late Mike Mahoney used to say, the study of software could benefit from the study of history, but few who practice software engineering are aware of even the fact that there was such a report in 1968.

6 6