[HN Gopher] Roots of 'Program' Revisited
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Roots of 'Program' Revisited
        
       Author : rbanffy
       Score  : 13 points
       Date   : 2021-05-27 09:23 UTC (13 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (cacm.acm.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (cacm.acm.org)
        
       | kragen wrote:
       | It never occurred to me that the "pro" in "program" referred to
       | the future!
       | 
       | So, if "program" (programma) means "pre-written", like a royal
       | edict that is posted publicly before it is to be obeyed, should
       | we rename the field of "programming by demonstration" (for
       | example, editor keyboard macros, spreadsheet formulas, or
       | GeoGebra constructions) to "postgramming" or "epigramming"? (I
       | suppose "epigram" already has a conflicting meaning.)
       | 
       | Because, in programming by example, the "program" is a log of the
       | sequence of operations that were carried out, and perhaps why, so
       | that we can repeat them, rather than being a prospective future
       | plan for a sequence of operations to carry out in the future.
        
       | 4ad wrote:
       | Of course that computers, computer programs, and computer science
       | all evolved from previous machines, techniques and concepts. But
       | that's almost meaningless, a truism, (almost?) everything can be
       | traced back historically from something else.
       | 
       | The abstractions that underlie computers, computer programs, and
       | computer science were discovered by analyzing and playing with
       | concrete objects that had a historical lineage, but the
       | abstraction exists independent of the objects. It is the
       | abstraction that's important, not the objects.
       | 
       | When we talk about the first computer and the first program we
       | are talking about the first physical realization of an abstract
       | idea.
        
       | qsort wrote:
       | I am very confused by this article.
       | 
       | When we use the word 'program' in computing, we pretty much
       | always mean 'a program for a (previously or implicitly defined)
       | computational model', I don't see in what sense this is
       | comparable to 'program clocks', which are basically timers/alarm
       | clocks, if I understand that paragraph correctly.
       | 
       | Similarly, when we say 'code' we mean 'textual representation of
       | the concrete syntax', clearly distinct from 'code' as in 'morse
       | code', which we would also call 'encoding'.
       | 
       | > This strengthens a computing discipline where one often cares
       | more about formalism than about actual programming
       | 
       | This is (perhaps) a (somewhat) fair criticism of (parts of)
       | computer science as an academic field of study, but I don't get
       | how the pieces fit toghether.
        
         | kragen wrote:
         | > _When we use the word 'program' in computing, we pretty much
         | always mean 'a program for a (previously or implicitly defined)
         | computational model', I don't see in what sense this is
         | comparable to 'program clocks', which are basically
         | timers/alarm clocks, if I understand that paragraph correctly._
         | 
         | It seems that a "program clock" was a clock that you could,
         | more or less in the modern sense, program; you could put a plan
         | into it, and then it would carry out the plan. Like those
         | electromechanical outlet timers that you can set to turn on
         | your floor lamps at certain times of day when you're not home.
         | The "program" for those is the little slidy things around the
         | dial that define when to turn the light on or off.
         | 
         | In the same way, a computer program is a plan that you can put
         | into a computer, thus programming the computer to carry out the
         | program. That concept isn't just _comparable_ to that of the
         | program you put into a program clock; it 's _identical_ ,
         | though there are some things the program clock can't do.
        
         | AnimalMuppet wrote:
         | > Similarly, when we say 'code' we mean 'textual representation
         | of the concrete syntax', clearly distinct from 'code' as in
         | 'morse code', which we would also call 'encoding'.
         | 
         | You're thinking in modern terms. When you had to program in
         | octal, "encoding" was exactly what you were doing. Assemblers
         | and, later, compilers made that less true, but originally that
         | was in fact the meaning.
        
         | leetcrew wrote:
         | it's worth teasing apart where words come from. the term
         | "dynamic programming" does not make a lot of sense until you
         | understand the historical context.
        
       | tonyle wrote:
       | Someone non technical once told me they "programmed as well" and
       | proceed to talk about planning and scheduling things.
        
       | jsnell wrote:
       | I read the "Why This Matters" section twice, but I still don't
       | get why the etymology of the word "program" rather than the
       | history of the concept of a "program" is of any importance. Does
       | somebody think they understood the argument, and can explain it
       | in a less convoluted manner?
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-05-27 23:01 UTC)