The History Of Programming, Part 1 - Mark Rendle

Following on from "The History of Programming, Part 0", which covered 50CE to 2017, we take a look back at what happened in the world of code in the first half of the 21st century, including:
C#s 8 through 42
Java 11
The Great Monad shortage of 2025
The First and Second Python Wars
That time America just went ahead and elected a Russian bot for President
Remember: those who do not learn from history are doomed to maintain it.
NDC Conferences
ndcsydney.com
ndcconferences...

[@sundhaug92]

The machine pictured in the context of Ada Lovelace is the differential engine, Ada made a program for the analythical engine. The differential engine uses finite differences to calculate series, while the analythical engine could do things like loading and storing and branching.

[@heshanperera1581]

VR Company called "Meta"? Yikes...

[@cedricmuller]

Yeah. What happened ?

[@catcatcatcatcatcatcatcatcatca]

The neat thing about quantum programming is that async operations become trivial. Sharing state is as easy as promising a quantum promise of a result, and concurrent threads can share and mutate the indeterminate data as they wish, as long as none of them returns before the mutated state. Of course this in turn means procedural programming becomes extremely tricky, and can be only done through abstractions. Some programmers swear by functional approach, where functions that can be evaluated before the program finishes are entirely avoided. Others prefer an object oriented approach where interfaces and classes are used to exchange promises of not sharing information or results. Some niche languages use actor based approach, where facades are used to divide the program into a network of actors. Actors compute results in procedural manner, and then message other actors that they know the result, but won’t share it before asked again. Most websites still load extremely slowly because of the complex, linear logic necessary for their functionality. While tools for dynamic static analysis exists, they can only probe at the possible issues, by emulating different user-interactions, and thus can’t prove correctness like dynamic quantum-code analysis can.

[@lesfreresdelaquote1176]

I would say that the first program actually implemented and tested was for Jacquard looms, which had been in existence for 40 years at the time of Babbage. They could do amazing graphics on a loom with punch cards... Full wawed tapestries, with knots instead of pixels, mixing colors and threads.

[@-parrrate]

Mark mentioned that one in part 0

[@RetroGenetic]

OI! I take that personally... I am a millenial and that book is still amazing and should be on the desk of every developer :P

[@rfvtgbzhn]

26:51 Idk Q#, but in quantum computers "Bell" usually hasn't anything to do with Bells, but with "Bell states", which are a certain type of quantum state, that us named after the Bell inequalities, where these kind of states appear. The Bell inequalities are a method for testing entanglement (see 30:27) experrimentally.

[@fredwright4423]

This is hilarious! Thanks.

[@rudrikavyas7195]

Nice explanation sir thank for this

[@channel3default]

tea, earl grey, hot, like a boss XD

[@shadowshadow2724]

What about this guy Konrad Zuse?

[@mathman274]

Why still use the acronym AI for 'Artificial Intelligence', let's use it for 'Actual Intelligence', and use 'SI', for 'Synthetic Intelligence', what's AI is really, nowadays.

[@a_commenter]

21:50 uhhh....

[@tsobf242]

o.o he knew

[@LorenMLang]

"You never type G-code in manually..." Well, obviously you've never been around any old-hat engineers with a CNC in their home office.

[@oresthopiak8609]

Almost 2022. Go still hasn't released Go 2.0

[@JohnDlugosz]

You made a big mistake when you started in with quantum mechanics. "...and flipping one will cause the other to flip" is quite incorrect. No matter what you contrive, you cannot use QM to communicate faster than light: that is a provable theorem in the mathematics of QM.

[@ukyoize]

There was test that prooved spooky action at the distance.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@ukyoize Superluminal communication is not the same thing, and definitely has never been "proven".

[@craigbeaumontable]

There's a reason the session isn't that popular

[@frankhaugen]

I was enjoying this until Q# ... My god I feel retarded, but I do believe I'll have to learn it, so I'll be able to demand a paycheck, only computable by a quantum computer ;-)

[@kaiserruhsam]

unity is trying to destroy itself so apple might get a pretty good deal here in a few months

[@KingsNothing]

no

[@KirillKhalitov]

The language of the future is OCaml with its new upcoming features: - multi-core - algebraic effects - modular implicits

[@pearz420]

This talk really goes off the rails into complete delusion once he starts talking about Apple leading a hardware revolution in the post-iPod era. And if Apple bought Unity, they would demand royalties the second someone makes more than $1, if not demanding outright ownership.

[@HasanSIM14]

Found the Apple hater

[@RiczWest]

Oh dear, was that supposed to be funny? informative? not really sure...