Scholarship on computers has tended to focus on the history of machines, presenting the age of computers as a revolution of its own; the purpose of Mahoney’s piece is to decenter the machine and instead focus on the processes and what they represent. Scholarship has traditionally focused on a linear narrative of machines dating back from the abacus, to the mechanical calculator, all the way to the PC internet of today. This approach, in fact, ignores the context of the computer’s development and what is so significant about it. The development of computers is really the collective creation of various communities adapting the technology to their own functions. Before data processing for businesses became the primary function of computing, industries from science and engineering to military operations made use of various functions, assisting anything from improving workplace flow in manufacturing to automation of military control systems. Community development shows that people saw and expecting different uses from the tech, but historians haven’t focused on this.
The emphasis should be on software. Software reflects the real world and software engineers are required to thoroughly understand not only the software itself, but also the context of how the world is modeled. When these fundamentals lacked, a ‘software crisis’ occurred in the late 1960s. Understanding software requires precise analysis and interaction with computer behaviors, rather than its structure, and how they operate. As a whole, studying the history of computing should focus on what the development process looked like; what applications communities wanted and how they developed the technology to fulfill their specific needs. It should involve acknowledging that computers are an output of human goals and that computers, as tools, open up new possibilities but also limit the work for which we use them. Each aspect of computers has its own history that informs what it can and cannot do.
Work was divided evenly among Charles, Gabriel, Georgia and Sean, with Charles editing and posting the final outline.
I found this reading particularly divergent from the other readings assigned, as it focused on the processes and software behind computers instead of the actual components of the computer. Moreover, this distinction between the machine itself and its “behavior” (software) is interesting in that it adds another layer of complexity to the computer that almost gives it a being of its own, kind of like a soul and a body. I also like how this group tied this reading into the general theme of the agency of individual people in computing by stressing “that computers are an output of human goals”. Another great comment would be that computers both open doors for us and limit our options for which we can use them. This idea prompted me to wonder whether or not some brilliant innovation is just waiting to be made by someone who will find a new use for the computer that is not traditionally imagined.
This was an excellent review. I am particularly inclined to think more about the emphasis on software development, specifically the idea that developers must understand how the world is modeled to make the best software possible. This idea of understanding the world and its populations continues to stress the importance of more people knowing how to utilize and program software. What then does this mean for how we teach software/computer science as a whole? This summary gives rise to the notion that computer development needs to be viewed and taught more like the humanities. Its future and its longevity lies in the hands of those most able to understand the human condition.
I think you very well analyzed and gave your own insight related to the paper. I particularly liked the part that you wrote ” it adds another layer of complexity to the computer that almost gives it a being of its own, kind of like a soul and a body.”