Superb! On Jun 25, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Dag Spicer <dspicer@computerhistory.org> wrote:

Here’s a (hopefully) relevant piece I wrote back in 2000 on “Firsts" for The Mercurians, the communications specialty group within SHOT.

Source: http://www.mercurians.org/2000_Spring/letters.htm

Not the First Word on "Firsts"

To the Editors:

I enjoyed reading the editorial on "firsts" in the recent issue of Antenna. It resonated very strongly with the activities of The Computer Museum History Center, where I am Curator & Manager of Historical Collections. We are very frequently asked: "what or who was first?" Some time ago, I instructed all History Center staff to never use the "f-word" (or, in fact, any superlatives) as a matter of Museum policy. The reasons for this particular institutional prohibition are several.

To begin, as Robert Merton noted in his great paper on "Singletons and Multiples in Science," it is rare that anything is objectively invented first or, if so, the unpacking of the relevant historical details in support of such claims blurs into "matters of religion" or patent disputes, neither of which necessarily correspond to priority beyond the narrow "qui bono" constructions that often underlie them. That is not to say the facts do not matter, but simply that often the reasons a particular question is being asked will tell you more than any putative answer. Are we thus mired in our own "subject-positions?" Do we always have to "follow the money"? No, but it's almost always more historically truthful to get questioners to change tack and ask the right question rather than telling them what they want to hear.

Also, the concept of "firsts" doesn't sit well with a sophisticated, critical understanding of the historical process of invention generally. With respect to the history of computing, I am constantly amazed at the invention of "firsts" by later aspirants to the throne. Innovations in microprocessor design, for example, almost invariably have antecedents in the "ancient" technologies of the mainframe from thirty or forty years ago. It is only the lack of disciplinary identity and historical consciousness among each generation of engineering graduates that fosters this "I did it first" perspective.

In complex systems, such as are typical of 20th century innovations, the adage "No man is an island" is particularly apt. As we know well, Edison, for example, did more than invent the light bulb. He devised an infrastructure for the bulb to live in. The same can be said for inventors of the telegraph, the telephone, jet aircraft, atomic weapons, radio and television, the laser, and in our case, computers. The "Search for Firsts," as suggested above, is usually of legalistic and journalistic significance only. Lawyers and journalists are particularly reluctant to accept the Center's refusal to make definitive claims on behalf of any one individual!

Claimants to firsts generally deploy as their first line of attack the concealment of context. This is particularly disturbing to any historian of technology and has the "hero worship" alluded to in the recent Antenna editorial as its substrate. I think this also nicely echoes your quoted source's remark that "...everyone loves an argument over fact rather than theory." Rather than addressing the subtleties of many people within a specific technical community working on related problems, it is simply the desire to encapsulate in a few short thoughts someone who can become iconic for a specific invention. If they are deceased, so much the better! There are no messy letters to the editor refuting public claims to the contrary. Newspapers and the media generally are the worst offenders. Nonetheless, with some explanation, reporters can be guided gently towards succinct descriptions of an invention that remain true to historical fact, viz. an explanation that will satisfy both layperson and sophisticate.

Because we at the Center view ourselves as one of the few keepers of the interpretive and historical conscience in the history of computing, and that we are considered authoritative within this specialty by a large as well as diverse audience, it is only ethical for us to not only explain the facts, but to instruct seekers of knowledge in their deployment. Piaget noted that a child develops the ability to ask "where did this come from?" at about the age of 12, and that the explanations they find satisfactory at this age are relatively simplified (if not simplistic). Not accidentally, the "intelligent twelve year old" is generally the level at which most media target their audience in terms of vocabulary and, I think, understanding. To break out of the heroic mold of history, we need to overcome this rather low bar with explanations that put individuals within their communities, moving from the paradigm "L'invention, c'est moi" to one in which the earthly inventions homo faber creates revolve around communities not individuals. Even towering figures, like Seymour Cray, to cite someone in the history of computing, had his refrigeration engineer without whom Cray's machines would have melted within minutes.

I often meditate on the agony that Elisha Gray must have felt. He filed his patent application for the telephone only hours after Alexander Graham Bell, and as a result, he was written out of history. I think it is Gray's resultant lifetime of disappointment that makes me so wary of, and reluctant to claim, anything as a "first." There are rare exceptions, I'll admit, but it seems the height of injustice to perpetuate narratives that turn the history of technology and the process of invention into such a zero-sum game.

I would enjoy hearing from others about this topic. On having these thoughts I am certain of one thing: I am not the first.

________________________________ Dag Spicer is an electrical engineer and historian of technology with advanced degrees from the University of Toronto and Stanford University. He is Curator and Manager of Historical Collections at The Computer Museum History Center, home to the world's largest collection of computing artifacts, in Mountain View, California.

-- Dag Spicer Senior Curator Computer History Museum Editorial Board, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 1401 North Shoreline Boulevard Mountain View, CA 94043-1311

Tel: +1 650 810 1035 Fax: +1 650 810 1055

Twitter: @ComputerHistory

On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Thomas Haigh <thaigh@computer.org<mailto:thaigh@computer.org>> wrote:

Hello everyone,

Hmm, the discovery of those diagrams is good news for EDSAC rebuilders but I was surprised to see that the press release twice calls EDSAC "the first practical general purpose computer." One occurrence is in the boilerplate passage on EDSAC at the bottom of the release, which suggests that this is TNMOC's official position. That seems to violate the de facto truce concluded between early computer history enthusiasts in the early 1980s when they settled on the appropriate series of adjectives to go between "first" and "computer." As Mike Williams once wrote, "there is more than enough glory in the creation of the modern computer to satisfy all of the early pioneers, most of whom are no longer in a position to care anyway." (That's the introduction to the "The First Computers: History and Architecture" collection from 2000). ENIAC got the metaphorical trophy for "first general purpose electronic digital computer" in its original 1945 configuration whereas EDSAC went home with the award for "first practical stored program computer."

This reminds me that the second in my series of articles with Crispin Rope and Mark Priestley about ENIAC and its early-1948 conversion to what has sometimes been called read-only stored program operation was recently published in Annals. We try to switch focus from "firsts" to questions of practical capabilities, in support of our detailed analysis of ENIAC's 1948 Monte Carlo program in the third and final paper, although we do conclude that an entirely practical version of the programming method described in the seminal 1945 First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC was implemented on ENIAC in March-April 1948, some months before the Manchester "Baby" ran what has usually been considered the first modern program.

Williams also noted that, "If you add enough adjectives to a description you can always claim your own favorite. For example ENIAC is often claimed to be the 'first electronic, general purpose, large scale, digital computer' and you certainly have to add all those adjectives before you have a correct statement." In our own work we argue that the history is somewhat more complicated than can be captured by those "first [adjective] [adjective] [adjective] computer" phrases, but that doesn't mean that "general purpose" and "stored program" can be conflated. People who care about "firsts" also need to take care with those adjectives.

The paper is Thomas Haigh, Mark Priestley & Crispin Rope, "Engineering 'The Miracle of the ENIAC': Implementing the Modern Code Paradigm" IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 36:2 (April-June 2014):41-59 and you can read it at http://eniacinaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/EngineeringTheMiracleoft heENIAC-scanned.pdf or, if you have access, from the IEEE CS Digital Library at http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2014/02/man2014020041-abs.html. Our www.EniacInAction.com website already includes a selection of technical documents and primary sources related to ENIAC's conversion and to the Monte Carlo programs it ran in 1948 (though it is not yet complete or attractively presented).

Best wishes,

Tom

From: members-bounces@sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of B. Randell Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:43 AM To: members Cc: B. Randell Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: News - Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of one of the earliest computers

Hi:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stephen Fleming <stephen.fleming@palam.co.uk> Subject: News - Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of one of the earliest computers Date: 25 June 2014 09:16:22 BST To: <brian.randell@ncl.ac.uk> Reply-To: <k>

NEWS RELEASE

Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of one of the earliest computers

25 June 2014

Some of the earliest diagrams of a computer have been rediscovered more than sixty years after they were drawn and are giving the EDSAC team at The National Museum of Computing fresh insights into their ongoing reconstruction of the world's first general purpose computer.

You can read the full release here: http://www.tnmoc.org/news/news-releases/lost-edsac-diagrams-reveal-sec rets-one-earliest-computers

Cheers

Brian Randell

School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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@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

Dag, that's a great summary of the "first" problem. To my shame I hadn't seen it before, but it's clearly still circulating among collections people over here in the UK, to judge from the number of times I've heard the "f-word" described as such. These discussions prompted me to a short piece a while back -- http://www.jbsumner.com/blog/2011/06/the-f-word/ -- specifically addressing the assumption that public audiences crave Firsts, and that there's anything of the ivory tower about rejecting them. While it's certainly true that historians and curators are more likely than others to spend time objecting to Firstism, I think its pitfalls are actually pretty apparent to most people who stop to think for a moment. All best James On 25/06/2014 23:28, Dag Spicer wrote:

Here’s a (hopefully) relevant piece I wrote back in 2000 on “Firsts" for The Mercurians, the communications specialty group within SHOT.

Source: http://www.mercurians.org/2000_Spring/letters.htm

Not the First Word on "Firsts"

To the Editors:

I enjoyed reading the editorial on "firsts" in the recent issue of Antenna. It resonated very strongly with the activities of The Computer Museum History Center, where I am Curator & Manager of Historical Collections. We are very frequently asked: "what or who was first?" Some time ago, I instructed all History Center staff to never use the "f-word" (or, in fact, any superlatives) as a matter of Museum policy. The reasons for this particular institutional prohibition are several.

To begin, as Robert Merton noted in his great paper on "Singletons and Multiples in Science," it is rare that anything is objectively invented first or, if so, the unpacking of the relevant historical details in support of such claims blurs into "matters of religion" or patent disputes, neither of which necessarily correspond to priority beyond the narrow "qui bono" constructions that often underlie them. That is not to say the facts do not matter, but simply that often the reasons a particular question is being asked will tell you more than any putative answer. Are we thus mired in our own "subject-positions?" Do we always have to "follow the money"? No, but it's almost always more historically truthful to get questioners to change tack and ask the right question rather than telling them what they want to hear.

Also, the concept of "firsts" doesn't sit well with a sophisticated, critical understanding of the historical process of invention generally. With respect to the history of computing, I am constantly amazed at the invention of "firsts" by later aspirants to the throne. Innovations in microprocessor design, for example, almost invariably have antecedents in the "ancient" technologies of the mainframe from thirty or forty years ago. It is only the lack of disciplinary identity and historical consciousness among each generation of engineering graduates that fosters this "I did it first" perspective.

In complex systems, such as are typical of 20th century innovations, the adage "No man is an island" is particularly apt. As we know well, Edison, for example, did more than invent the light bulb. He devised an infrastructure for the bulb to live in. The same can be said for inventors of the telegraph, the telephone, jet aircraft, atomic weapons, radio and television, the laser, and in our case, computers. The "Search for Firsts," as suggested above, is usually of legalistic and journalistic significance only. Lawyers and journalists are particularly reluctant to accept the Center's refusal to make definitive claims on behalf of any one individual!

Claimants to firsts generally deploy as their first line of attack the concealment of context. This is particularly disturbing to any historian of technology and has the "hero worship" alluded to in the recent Antenna editorial as its substrate. I think this also nicely echoes your quoted source's remark that "...everyone loves an argument over fact rather than theory." Rather than addressing the subtleties of many people within a specific technical community working on related problems, it is simply the desire to encapsulate in a few short thoughts someone who can become iconic for a specific invention. If they are deceased, so much the better! There are no messy letters to the editor refuting public claims to the contrary. Newspapers and the media generally are the worst offenders. Nonetheless, with some explanation, reporters can be guided gently towards succinct descriptions of an invention that remain true to historical fact, viz. an explanation that will satisfy both layperson and sophisticate.

Because we at the Center view ourselves as one of the few keepers of the interpretive and historical conscience in the history of computing, and that we are considered authoritative within this specialty by a large as well as diverse audience, it is only ethical for us to not only explain the facts, but to instruct seekers of knowledge in their deployment. Piaget noted that a child develops the ability to ask "where did this come from?" at about the age of 12, and that the explanations they find satisfactory at this age are relatively simplified (if not simplistic). Not accidentally, the "intelligent twelve year old" is generally the level at which most media target their audience in terms of vocabulary and, I think, understanding. To break out of the heroic mold of history, we need to overcome this rather low bar with explanations that put individuals within their communities, moving from the paradigm "L'invention, c'est moi" to one in which the earthly inventions homo faber creates revolve around communities not individuals. Even towering figures, like Seymour Cray, to cite someone in the history of computing, had his refrigeration engineer without whom Cray's machines would have melted within minutes.

I often meditate on the agony that Elisha Gray must have felt. He filed his patent application for the telephone only hours after Alexander Graham Bell, and as a result, he was written out of history. I think it is Gray's resultant lifetime of disappointment that makes me so wary of, and reluctant to claim, anything as a "first." There are rare exceptions, I'll admit, but it seems the height of injustice to perpetuate narratives that turn the history of technology and the process of invention into such a zero-sum game.

I would enjoy hearing from others about this topic. On having these thoughts I am certain of one thing: I am not the first.

________________________________ Dag Spicer is an electrical engineer and historian of technology with advanced degrees from the University of Toronto and Stanford University. He is Curator and Manager of Historical Collections at The Computer Museum History Center, home to the world's largest collection of computing artifacts, in Mountain View, California.

-- Dag Spicer Senior Curator Computer History Museum Editorial Board, IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 1401 North Shoreline Boulevard Mountain View, CA 94043-1311

Tel: +1 650 810 1035 Fax: +1 650 810 1055

Twitter: @ComputerHistory

On Jun 25, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Thomas Haigh <thaigh@computer.org<mailto:thaigh@computer.org>> wrote:

Hello everyone,

Hmm, the discovery of those diagrams is good news for EDSAC rebuilders but I was surprised to see that the press release twice calls EDSAC "the first practical general purpose computer." One occurrence is in the boilerplate passage on EDSAC at the bottom of the release, which suggests that this is TNMOC's official position. That seems to violate the de facto truce concluded between early computer history enthusiasts in the early 1980s when they settled on the appropriate series of adjectives to go between "first" and "computer." As Mike Williams once wrote, "there is more than enough glory in the creation of the modern computer to satisfy all of the early pioneers, most of whom are no longer in a position to care anyway." (That's the introduction to the "The First Computers: History and Architecture" collection from 2000). ENIAC got the metaphorical trophy for "first general purpose electronic digital computer" in its original 1945 configuration whereas EDSAC went home with the award for "first practical stored program computer."

This reminds me that the second in my series of articles with Crispin Rope and Mark Priestley about ENIAC and its early-1948 conversion to what has sometimes been called read-only stored program operation was recently published in Annals. We try to switch focus from "firsts" to questions of practical capabilities, in support of our detailed analysis of ENIAC's 1948 Monte Carlo program in the third and final paper, although we do conclude that an entirely practical version of the programming method described in the seminal 1945 First Draft of a Report on the EDVAC was implemented on ENIAC in March-April 1948, some months before the Manchester "Baby" ran what has usually been considered the first modern program.

Williams also noted that, "If you add enough adjectives to a description you can always claim your own favorite. For example ENIAC is often claimed to be the 'first electronic, general purpose, large scale, digital computer' and you certainly have to add all those adjectives before you have a correct statement." In our own work we argue that the history is somewhat more complicated than can be captured by those "first [adjective] [adjective] [adjective] computer" phrases, but that doesn't mean that "general purpose" and "stored program" can be conflated. People who care about "firsts" also need to take care with those adjectives.

The paper is Thomas Haigh, Mark Priestley & Crispin Rope, "Engineering 'The Miracle of the ENIAC': Implementing the Modern Code Paradigm" IEEE Annals of the History of Computing 36:2 (April-June 2014):41-59 and you can read it at http://eniacinaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/EngineeringTheMiracleoft heENIAC-scanned.pdf or, if you have access, from the IEEE CS Digital Library at http://www.computer.org/csdl/mags/an/2014/02/man2014020041-abs.html. Our www.EniacInAction.com website already includes a selection of technical documents and primary sources related to ENIAC's conversion and to the Monte Carlo programs it ran in 1948 (though it is not yet complete or attractively presented).

Best wishes,

Tom

From: members-bounces@sigcis.org [mailto:members-bounces@sigcis.org] On Behalf Of B. Randell Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2014 4:43 AM To: members Cc: B. Randell Subject: [SIGCIS-Members] Fwd: News - Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of one of the earliest computers

Hi:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stephen Fleming <stephen.fleming@palam.co.uk> Subject: News - Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of one of the earliest computers Date: 25 June 2014 09:16:22 BST To: <brian.randell@ncl.ac.uk> Reply-To: <k>

NEWS RELEASE

Lost EDSAC diagrams reveal secrets of one of the earliest computers

25 June 2014

Some of the earliest diagrams of a computer have been rediscovered more than sixty years after they were drawn and are giving the EDSAC team at The National Museum of Computing fresh insights into their ongoing reconstruction of the world's first general purpose computer.

You can read the full release here: http://www.tnmoc.org/news/news-releases/lost-edsac-diagrams-reveal-sec rets-one-earliest-computers

Cheers

Brian Randell

School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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@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

Hi Scott: And I would guess that if it were discovered that PhD theses had been submitted at roughly the same time in two different universities on essentially the same History of Science topic, with coincidentally very similar content and conclusions, there would be some reason to bring the F-word into play even in the faculty lounge(s)! :-) Cheers Brian Randell On 27 Jun 2014, at 13:03, Scott Guthery <sbg@acw.com> wrote:

Patents and copyrights are regularly adjudicated on firstness. 'First' would thus seem to be a recognized state of being at least outside of the faculty lounge.

Cheers, Scott

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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

School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

Hi Bill: My not-altogether serious scenario is, I agree, unlikely - with the possible exception of Turing-related topics, given the amazing amount of worldwide publicity and activity that was generated for Alan Turing Year! Indeed I would suggest that the whole ATY activity is perhaps worthy of a (single) thesis - albeit in sociology :-) But being serious for the moment, establishing the order in which things happened is often very useful in helping to rule out conjectured cause-effect relationships, e.g. in accident investigations - this happens to be a research topic I'm investigating at present. Cheers Brian On 27 Jun 2014, at 15:05, William Aspray <bill@ischool.utexas.edu> wrote:

I think that Brian's scenario is unlikely for historians because history is about interpretation. Bernard Cohen published a book about Isaac Newton some 50 years ago, but this has not stopped a glut of scholars from continuing to write about Newton.

Patents were controversial at the time of the Constitution, and for political and economic reasons they continue to be controversial today, e.g. Business method patents. Being first is an important consideration in patents, but there are many other considerations as well. Patent claims are mediated by documentation both internal to the organization, e.g. Lab notebooks, and also outside, e.g. scholarly publications. They are also mediated by filing a patent claim in a particular legal style.

In the world of technological products and services, being first can be an advantage but it's often not decisive. Other factors such as supply chains, distribution networks, political clout, better service and maintenance, and protected markets can be much more important.

Even in pure thought areas first is not always all that it's cracked up to be. In mathematics, for example, the first proof of an unknown fact can often be inelegantly constructed; it might also not recognize all the connections to other mathematical results. There is a long history of these first results being abandoned in favor of the more Elegant ones.

Computing systems of the 20th and 21st centuries are complex technological systems. One reason why historians find the attention to firsts so insidious is that it concentrates all of the credit on a single individual or laboratory, when in fact most systems are built on The shoulders of many previous ideas and technologies.

I'm going to use an analogy that I'm sure my engineering colleagues won't like very much. Some years ago I conducted an oral history with the well-known Japanese businessman Den Fujita. He was proud for having "invented" the teriyaki burger and serving it in his McDonald's restaurants. Clearly both teriyaki style cooking and hamburgers had existed long before this. One might say that Fujita's contribution was one of assembly. Perhaps it would be healthy for historians of early computing systems to think of the creators of early computer systems more as assemblers than as creative geniuses.

Bill

...

On Jun 27, 2014, at 6:24 AM, "B. Randell" <Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk> wrote:

Hi Scott:

And I would guess that if it were discovered that PhD theses had been submitted at roughly the same time in two different universities on essentially the same History of Science topic, with coincidentally very similar content and conclusions, there would be some reason to bring the F-word into play even in the faculty lounge(s)! :-)

Cheers

Brian Randell

On 27 Jun 2014, at 13:03, Scott Guthery <sbg@acw.com> wrote:

...

Patents and copyrights are regularly adjudicated on firstness. 'First' would thus seem to be a recognized state of being at least outside of the faculty lounge.

Cheers, Scott

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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

School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell

_______________________________________________ This email is relayed from members@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

School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU EMAIL = Brian.Randell@ncl.ac.uk PHONE = +44 191 222 7923 URL = http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/brian.randell