Bill, As you may know, there has been extraordinary effort in reforming beginning CS education over the past decade at both the high school and beginning college level. NSF, the College Board, ACM and its Computer Science Teachers Association, and Code.org<http://Code.org> have all been big players in this effort. History has not been at the forefront of this effort. If one wanted a campaign to get more history into the CS curriculum, one might talk to Janice Cuny at NSF, Owen Astrachan at Duke, Dan Garcia at Berkeley, Chris Stephenson at Google, or Pat Yongpradit at Code.org<http://Code.org> and try to get them on board. One might give a session or a tutorial at the ACM SIGCSE conference or perhaps at the Frontiers in Education conference. These are perhaps the most effective paths to widespread change. Bill Aspray On Nov 11, 2016, at 5:17 AM, McMillan, William W <william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu<mailto:william.mcmillan@cuaa.edu>> wrote: As Len and Paul say, history should indeed be included in a computer science curriculum, but it is often hard to spend much time there given rigidly defined requirements. If there's a required course that's an overview of, or broad intro to, CS then one can turn that toward history. I taught an honors section of such a course (not to CS majors; it was a gen ed class) and encouraged historical topics for the group project. I sat with mouth agape as one group presented their project on how to program the ENIAC. Where I teach now an overview of CS is required for majors and is a gen ed class as well. As long as I've been somewhat involved with the history of computing, I'm ashamed to admit that I haven't really taken the opportunity to include all that much on history in that course. I'm encouraged to change that. As Alex says, in arts and humanities, historical topics are more readily accepted. BTW, Alex, in following some links from your syllabus, I saw your HyperCard references. You and others might like to know that HyperCard is alive and well, more powerful than ever, in the form of LiveCode out of the UK (livecode.com<http://livecode.com>). It supports multiple stacks in the same application, web delivery, database front-ending, smart device deployment, and tons of other industrial grade capabilities. A psych prof I work with uses it for running experiments and my software engineering students have used it for a term project. There's a free community version for Mac, Windows, and Linux. - Bill ________________________________________ From: Paul Fishwick [metaphorz@gmail.com<mailto:metaphorz@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2016 11:05 PM To: Len Shustek Cc: McMillan, William W; Sigcis Subject: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Importance of history to practitioners Len: On Nov 10, 2016, at 9:46 PM, Len Shustek <len@shustek.com<mailto:len@shustek.com>> wrote: At 09:59 AM 11/10/2016, McMillan, William W wrote: I thought you might like to hear the following. In a meeting with a small software company in Ann Arbor that emphasizes user-centered, agile development, a colleague and I asked what subjects should be included in an academic program in interaction design. The firm's chief designer, who also has a programming background, said that the most important course would be history of computing! Even better would be to have the history of computing embedded in academic computing programs. Physicists learn about Newton, and chemists learn about Lavoisier, so why shouldn't computer scientists learn about Babbage, Turing, and Von Neumann? +1 on this concept, but I would go further. What about analog computing? I am unsure how to solve this problem of ahistorical computer science. I would guess that part of the problem is that engineering (where many computer science departments are situated) have programs that have few electives, and are geared heavily towards industry, as driven by student demand (they come by droves to get CS degrees, for utilitarian purposes). Maybe this is one of those liberal arts vs. vocational debates? -p My frustration teaching computer architecture at Stanford in the mid-1990s with a required syllabus that avoided history led me to start a museum nearby, because I knew I wouldn't be able change the curriculum. If you are interested in the story of how that happened, see http://s3data.computerhistory.org/atchm/documents/Personal_Reflections_on_th... which is referenced in my blog article on the Computer History Museum's 35th [sic] anniversary. http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/computer-history-museum-celebrating-35-... -- Len _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org Paul Fishwick, PhD Distinguished University Chair of Arts, Technology, and Emerging Communication Professor of Computer Science Director, Creative Automata Laboratory The University of Texas at Dallas Arts & Technology 800 West Campbell Road, AT10 Richardson, TX 75080-3021 Home: utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick<http://utdallas.edu/atec/fishwick> Blog 1: creative-automata.com<http://creative-automata.com> Blog 2: modelingforeveryone.com<http://modelingforeveryone.com> LinkedIn: metaphorz Twitter: @PaulFishwick _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org<http://sigcis.org>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

There is a current in both science and history of science which on the contrary suggests that a science and its history are and even should be independent disciplines

I suspect a debate on the utility of the history of computing to current computing practice is likewise complex and requires effort.

Allan, these are very interesting issues for all historians of science. In my case (with a BSc in Sociology and MA in History of Science) I have been doing research as a PhD student in Barcelona, focused on the history of videogames in Spain these last four years. I should recognize (now that I am almost finishing my dissertation) that working on the history of videogames (which I relate to the history of computing as well) in an environment dominated mostly by historians of science, it has not always been easy. For example, one time I was showing my current research in a "work in progress" session, and after almost one hour of talking, someone in the audience asked me: so why should videogames be an issue worth considering within the history of science? Thus, in a certain way, these last years I felt as if I had to validate or "legitimate" the importance of the history of computer games permanently. Fortunately, two weeks ago I gave a talk in Valencia which I prepared as a response to the previous question, and the audience seemed to be very excited and receptive to the idea of embracing video games as part for the history of science. Allan, the debates on the utility of the history of computing to current computing practice are complex, as you already commented. It is exactly the same issue that I am dealing with the history of video games. Why should students of engineering, computing or game design graduates care about the history of these technologies? I do not have a clear answer to that, but I suspect that the debate is dangerous and incorrect: as historians (no matter what is our specialization), we do know that history really matters, and it is always relevant to better understand the present and the world we all live in. However, when asked about the "utility" of our careers, we are forced to "sell" ourselves as "producers" of knowledge, not for students and other audiences, but for "clients" who should be "paying" us for our "work". I always wonder whether this has to be our real job. Best wishes, Ignasi [http://www.uab.cat/vcard/uab.png]<http://www.uab.cat/> Ignasi Medà Calvet PhD Candidate CEHIC - UAB Unitat d'Història de la Medicina Campus de la UAB · 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès) · Barcelona · Spain +34 659066469 www.uab.cat<http://www.uab.cat/> ________________________________ De: Members <members-bounces@lists.sigcis.org> de part de Allan Olley <allan.olley@utoronto.ca> Enviat el: dissabte, 12 de novembre de 2016 7:14:42 Per a: Len Shustek A/c: Sigcis Tema: Re: [SIGCIS-Members] Importance of history to practitioners

Even better would be to have the history of computing embedded in academic computing programs. Physicists learn about Newton, and chemists learn about Lavoisier, so why shouldn't computer scientists learn about Babbage, Turing, and Von Neumann?

I am curious where physicists learn about Newton or chemists about Lavoisier as part of the required academic corriculum. I did a physics degree with little exposure to Newton. There is a current in both science and history of science which on the contrary suggests that a science and its history are and even should be independent disciplines (should the history of science be rated X? ie will it corrupt the scientist's mind?). I am pretty sure the utility of history of science to current science is a live controversy. As a historian of science (with a BSc in Physics) I tend to think history of science has something to contribute to science, but the claim can be tricky to defend. I suspect a debate on the utility of the history of computing to current computing practice is likewise complex and requires effort. -- Yours Truly, Allan Olley, PhD http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound/ On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Len Shustek wrote:

At 09:59 AM 11/10/2016, McMillan, William W wrote:

...

I thought you might like to hear the following. In a meeting with a small software company in Ann Arbor that emphasizes user-centered, agile development, a colleague and I asked what subjects should be included in an academic program in interaction design. The firm's chief designer, who also has a programming background, said that the most important course would be history of computing!

Even better would be to have the history of computing embedded in academic computing programs. Physicists learn about Newton, and chemists learn about Lavoisier, so why shouldn't computer scientists learn about Babbage, Turing, and Von Neumann?

My frustration teaching computer architecture at Stanford in the mid-1990s with a required syllabus that avoided history led me to start a museum nearby, because I knew I wouldn't be able change the curriculum. If you are interested in the story of how that happened, see http://s3data.computerhistory.org/atchm/documents/Personal_Reflections_on_th... which is referenced in my blog article on the Computer History Museum's 35th [sic] anniversary. http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/computer-history-museum-celebrating-35-...

-- Len _______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members at sigcis.org, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/ and you can change your subscription options at http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org

I'd like to respond to a number of points, from the perspective of a computer scientist who has long been dismayed at how the field teaches about the past--or fails to do so. First, regarding historical content in other science fields: My experience as an undergraduate (around 1980) was that elements of history were naturally incorporated in the majors' introductory sequences for both chemistry and physics. I definitely recall the material from the freshman chemistry survey. It was common for the physics curriculum to recapitulate the later developments in the field by spending a year on classical methods before upending all of it in a sophomore-level semester of "modern physics". The labs for the modern physics course I took included versions of many of the fundamental experiments of that revolution. I think that jolt was significant in shaping the perspective of a few generations of physicists. I can speculate on several factors that might have led to a decline in that material. My sense is that college-level science curricula have generally become more applied, partly because the intro courses are dominated by students who do not aspire to becoming chemists or physicists (pre-meds, engineers). I suspect that the rise of Advanced Placement has reduced the share of majors who take the introductory courses in college, and it is easy for me to imagine that the high school environment would have less motivation to bother with the historical perspective. The place of history in math seems to wax and wane; it has at times been fashionable, but is currently not. The math major at the college where I most recently taught is currently capped by a historically framed survey/review of the field; many of the students respond enthusiastically to putting it all together and say they wish they'd heard more of that perspective sooner. (Whether they'd have cared for it sooner is less clear.) But, a few years ago, external reviewers deprecated the capstone as out of step with what is going on elsewhere. Regarding history in computing: I should remind the readers of this list that what interests computists is not the same as what interests historians: the guilds have different systems of values. (Recall the lament from Donald Knuth a couple of years back, which is what brought me to this list.) And "computing" is a very big tent; one of the problems in curricula (and in professional societies) is that there are very different--and sometimes incompatible--ideas of what it is we are about. We often seem to be unsure just who we mean by "we". We claim different titles (CS, CE, SE, IT, IS), and even under those headings we differ as to whether we are practitioners, researchers, or educators. And our perspectives on education range from highly instrumental to strongly liberal. Much of what I've seen of history in both computing textbooks and trade books has been weak to inaccurate. It is probably fairly long lead time to see improvement in books, but in the near term I think that there is a place for an effort focused on equipping faculty; I think that will require both putting together resources they can use and more outreach to "sell" the need. The workshops hosted by CRA a few years back were valuable, but we still need something much broader and sustained. I'm interested in finding other folks who are interested in working on materials for and outreach to both teachers and researchers. Cary Gray cggray@mac.com

I don't remember if the following has been mentioned on this list or not. If it is unlikely that a university course of study for computer science will be changed to include history, I wonder if some computing history could be done in informal intersession courses (e.g., http://web.mit.edu/IAP/) or through a lunch-hour seminar series. Also, in these days of on-line video courses, maybe one initial computing history course could be developed that is then available to students everywhere; no doubt such videos already exist. If there were a list of the good ones by topic, perhaps the professor for a particular technical course could refer the students to the relevant video in case the students want to watch it.

I’m curious, what do people on this list think of the historical sections in Patterson and Hennesy’s Computer Organization and Design: The Hardware/Software Interface and Hennesy and Patterson’s Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach? Those seem to follow the kinds of historical asides in physics textbooks. Of course, it’s history from a particular polemical perspective, how did computer architectures evolve from ENIAC up through the epitome of CISC designs, VAX, and how RISC represents a new approach beyond this. But it’s better than nothing. When I took CS152 as an undergrad at Berkeley in 1998, we weren’t assigned to read any of those historical chapters at all, except for a small aside on what an accumulator architecture was. It left me largely ignorant of computer history.

I wasn’t lucky enough to have Patterson as my CS152 professor, unfortunately!

On Nov 17, 2016, at 3:23 PM, William Aspray <William.Aspray@Colorado.EDU> wrote:

Dave Patterson used to be my boss when he was chairman of the board of Computing Research Association and I was executive director. We had several conversation about history, and it was clear that he and his colleague Randy Katz both had a serious appreciation for history. Dave made his graduate students read back in the computing literature much more extensively than many other advisors do, so as to give these students a historical sense of their discipline.

By the way, here at the University of Colorado Boulder we have a junior-level course in our information science department, which I teach, which covers both computing history and information history. It is an elective but counts towards the undergraduate degree in our department (which is a technically oriented degree with an orientation towards data science, machine learning, visualization, computational social science, network science, design, and human-computer interaction). The course fulfills a history requirement across all the departments in my college (College of Communication, Media, and Information). It looks as though the computer science department, which is in the college of engineering, will approve this course as an elective for its undergraduate majors.

Cordially, Bill