Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×
Programming Technology

Grace Hopper, UNIVAC, and the First Programming Language 137 137

Posted by samzenpus
from the back-in-the-day dept.
M-Saunders (706738) writes "It weighed 13 tons, had 5,200 vacuum tubes, and took up a whole garage, but the UNIVAC I was an incredible machine for its time. Memory was provided by tanks of liquid mercury, while the clock speed was a whopping 2.25 MHz. The UNIVAC I was one of the first commercial general-purpose computers produced, with 46 shipped, and Linux Voice has taken an in-depth look at it. Learn its fascinating instruction set, and also check out FLOW-MATIC, the first English-language data processing language created by American computing pioneer Grace Hopper."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Grace Hopper, UNIVAC, and the First Programming Language

Comments Filter:
  • by rubycodez (864176) on Sunday May 18, 2014 @11:06AM (#47031623)

    no one has claimed only space exploration spinoffs gave us computer tech. once again you raise a straw man and then set it on fire.

    However, ICBM and space exploration certainly did drive integrated circuit technology for computers. First computers built of Jack Kirby's solid state integrated circuits used by the air force in Minuteman II guidance system

  • Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by clovis (4684) on Monday May 19, 2014 @02:13AM (#47036109)

    Dang, my other response got posted as AC. It's pretty obvious it was me.

    I found his post to question conventional wisdom, but it's certainly not "un-educated". You seem to be responding to someone else's post, or someone else's opinion. Being "an old guy", perhaps you're simply making the same response that's won you praise over your entire life. i.e. "women have had to fight for rights and were actively discriminated against".

    As a side note, I haven't won praise over my entire life because I was on the wrong side for a very long time. The reformed sinner is the most annoying; that's me.

    That seems to be your entire response. While what you say is true, the conversation has shifted among generations now, so perhaps you need to make note of that.

    I really think you need to go back and re-read what the OP said (especially if your response is it's simply "un-educated"). He's simply questioning whether the the gains women have gotten came through second wave feminism or through other means.

    And he's right to question whither the gains came, and it's complex and interesting topic.

    I think there's a lot of truth to that. A lot of women went to work because of economic need, not because of ideology. Economically having half the work force idle isn't advantageous. Essentially a lot of women got jobs because the family needed the money, not because they read "the second sex", or because Gloria Steinhem existed.

    And I think you're correct there as well. I do agree that the feminist movement was not responsible for women wanting to get jobs.
    However, a big part of the problem was that previously women were prevented from getting many jobs due to legally allowed anti-female bias. They did not apply to schools that did not accept their applications, and they did not apply for jobs that they knew would would be denied. The feminist movement did much to fix those laws.

    You can disagree if you like, and that's fine, but having a different opinion on where change comes isn't un-educated.

    Nowhere did the OP make any claims that banks wouldn't give out loans, or that women weren't discriminated against. That's an argument I think you've been making for years, and people of your generation have fought you on. The OP is younger than you, and comes from a very different background and likely takes very different opinions than people of your generation. So taking him to task and putting him in the place of a member of your generation kind of misses the point, and the point that the OP was trying to make.

    Well, you got me there - I may be making assumptions about where he's coming from that aren't there.

    However, here's what he said:
    >quote>I've some doubts about quite a lot of the commonly accepted modern wisdom vis a vis women in the workplace back then and even previously. Most of the women in my family worked outside the home back in the 60s and 70s, some even had excellent careers.

    That's what puts it in my ballpark.
    He is implying that because some women (his relatives) had good careers back in the 60's and 70's the commonly accepted wisdom is in doubt.
    That is the part I'm saying he is uneducated on. As I said before, there's not a good word that doesn't sounds pejorative. On second thought, I could have said "you don't know what you're talking about."

    Anyway. It's nice that he had relatives that had good careers, but my point is that for MOST women they could NOT have many careers due to institutionalized anti-female bias on many levels. That is the part I'm saying he is uneducated on. Anti-female bias was still legal and still the standard in the 60's and was only beginning to go away in the 70's. The removal of legally allowed anti-female bias (or rather the creating the laws that prohibited bias) was largely done by the feminist movement - they are the people who got the work done.
    Also, I strongly

Gravity brings me down.