28 Jan
2011
28 Jan
'11
3:48 p.m.
I've been observing the discussion on the definition of "computer" and
other
computer related words over the last few days/weeks. I've been involved in
forums for a number of years now and the most heated arguments seem to take
place regarding the definitions of particular words. Often they go along
the lines of who invented the first (widget/technique/concept) then evolve
into vigourous debates as to the precise definition of the said
widget/technique/concept etc.
I'm all for precise definitions. You need them for clarity of
communication. But the English language itself and the way it evolves is a
problem here. It can lead to an unavoidable fuzziness and drifting of
I think it was Martin Gardner who pointed out that many terms lie at
opposite ends ofa contimuum, but that does not make them worthless.
For example, nobody can give a precise wavelenght that separates
'blue' from 'green'. But this deosn't mean it's meaningless to say
that
the phospohr on the IBM5151 monitor I am using knw emits green light. Or
that the Intellec MCS8i is blue.
When we come ot 'first computer', how you define 'computer' clearly makes
a differnece to the answer. But I think we all know that whatever you
class as the 'first computer'. it was developed from earlier machiens
that you don't class as computers, but others might. What is important,
really, is to describe the machines accurately giving their mathod of
operation, etc. Then others can decider whehter or not _they_ want to
class them as computers, and more importantly can see how they fit into
the overall history.
-tony