Computing Pioneer Dies

-----Original Message----- From: cctalk [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Noel Chiappa via cctalk Sent: Monday, November 13, 2017 5:00 PM To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Cc: jnc at mercury.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: Computing Pioneer Dies Just to clarify my understanding of your position, is a system with a CPU chip (say one of the 68K models) with only ROM not a 'stored program machine'? Noel PS: You really should look at the book ("ENIAC In Action"), and not rely on the articles; it's later, more coherent (not being split across a handful of papers), and much more detailed (e.g. it includes the instruction set for the 'programmed' version of the ENIAC). ----- Note that most of the BRL references in the three articles in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing are available online through DTIC. Search using Google Scholar. Unfortunately the referenced manuscripts located in private archives appear to remain inaccessible to the general public. Tables I thru III in the second paper, offering a set of side-by-side comparisons for "ENIAC, EDVAC, and three other computers of the late 1940s" are well worth contemplation. The third paper puts a practical perspective on the somewhat more theoretical perspectives of the first two papers. "1948 ENIAC" was a quite interesting reorganization/application of the computing resources available in the "1945 ENIAC". It looks like the somewhat less expensive paperback for "ENIAC in Action" is due for publication in January. Noel: Does the book make any attempt to trace any technological/social effects *from* the "1948 ENIAC" to other computer developments? Or are we to conclude that the "1948 ENIAC" was aa significant "existence proof" for aspects of the First Report (and evidently quite productive as a computational tool) but sterile with respect to direct progenitors and impact on other computer developments of the late-1940's? For example, do they cite any evidence that either BINAC or early UNIVAC were other than "from whole cloth" in nature? Any of the "IACs"? Perhaps more at the level of "coding style/procedures" than hardware architecture/design/implementation? As an engineer, I like systems that "get stuff done" and the "1948 ENIAC" certainly qualifies. As a (computer) scientist I like what SSEM demonstrated and the fact that it had direct (physical & intellectual) offspring. As a practical person I like that the SSEM directly led to the "first general-purpose commercially produced computer" (Ferranti Mark 1). There's a lot to like in the span of 1945-1955! ----- paul