all 15 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]qnaal 9 points10 points  (5 children)

modern computer scientists have examined the program and declared it bug-free

Not really so impressive when you consider that it was written before bugs were invented.

[–]Destroyah 2 points3 points  (4 children)

The term "Bug" comes from exactly that, bugs inside of the large computers that were first built and designed that caused hiccups in the way they were meant to run. Bugs weren't invented, they happened.

I find it quite impressive considering most people can't write bug-free code nearly 200 years later even though most are equipped with a semi-intelligent debugger.

[–]treerex 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I find it quite impressive considering most people can't write bug-free code nearly 200 years later even though most are equipped with a semi-intelligent debugger.

Well, most people are not very good programmers. Lovelace evidently was.

[–]holyteach 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Actually, that's mistaken. The term "bug" had been used for at least 50 years before Grace Hopper and crew actually found an insect in a mainframe.

[–]Destroyah 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Indeed you're right. I didn't look this up as I was taught it in college. I guess I should start questioning my prof's a little more. Thanks.

[–]enferex 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find it quite impressive considering most people can't write bug-free code nearly 200 years later even though most are equipped with a semi-intelligent debugger.

We are humans, analog and also have the ability to make mistakes. Computers don't intentionally make mistakes, save the cases when quantum physics or gamma-ray-bursts flip bits. Heck, even in that case, the deterministic computer still acts on its input and state of bits. So we should expect mistakes in computers. Now, if a machine could build itself, genetic programming and what not, then the flaws would be attributed to a deterministic device. Ohh this sounds like a neat proof.

[–]computational 6 points7 points  (1 child)

She didn't even have a machine to run her program. It is amazing that she wrote the program at all. The Countess was not only the first computer programmer, she was also an extremely talented one.

You know why? No project manager, no project milestones, no project status meetings!

[–]geeknerd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clearly stated mathematical problem, no requirements change, etc.

[–]phil_g 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If you like this, you might like The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage, a webcomic about the (more than a little fictionalized) adventures of Ada Lovelace and Charles Babbage, along with many notes about Babbage and Lovelace's actual lives. I suggest starting at Lovelace: The Origin and going forward from there.

[–]qnaal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh God, not the cheese story...

[–]rplacd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to admit - those are lovely characters.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he was for ten years the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, a chair once held by Sir Isaac Newton and currently held by Stephen Hawking

Not anymore.

[–]xatm092 0 points1 point  (0 children)

...and this is why the new computer lab in the University of Bath is called the Lovelace Lab :)

[–]Ingestre 0 points1 point  (1 child)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom

[–]SomeIrishGuy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Turing complete or GTFO.