×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

157 comments

Thanks, but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45641775)

I noticed that when I was on Google today already. Thanks again.

Re:Thanks, but (2, Interesting)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#45642013)

Really? I never see the Google "home page" anymore, I just type something into the address bar, if it's not a URL then it sends it as a search to Google and gives me the results

Yes, the Google logo on the left is a bit different than usual but not enough to tell me what it was about.

Re:Thanks, but (2)

barlevg (2111272) | about 4 months ago | (#45642231)

My version of Chrome now shows the doodle on the "New Tab" page. I'm glad. I always hated missing them.

Grace Hopper Park (3, Interesting)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 4 months ago | (#45641809)

I always liked seeing the sign for Grace Hopper Park in Arlington, VA, in front of the apartment complex where she lived for years. Sadly, they did not put "Admiral" on the sign.

Re:Grace Hopper Park (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#45642739)

I always liked seeing the sign for Grace Hopper Park in Arlington, VA, in front of the apartment complex where she lived for years. Sadly, they did not put "Admiral" on the sign.

There wasn't room due to all the THIS DIVISION and THAT DIVISION and 77 REDEFINES 01-WS-MY-BUTT stuff which, as far as I'm aware, does absolutely bugger all.

Anybody who doesn't know ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45641833)

Anybody on Slashdot who doesn't know who she is ... get the fuck out, because you're on the wrong website.

Re:Anybody who doesn't know ... (5, Insightful)

MyLongNickName (822545) | about 4 months ago | (#45641917)

Anybody on Slashdot who doesn't know who she is ... get the fuck out, because you're on the wrong website.

You might try wrapping your head around this: obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com].

Re:Anybody who doesn't know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642051)

My kingdom for mod points.

Re:Anybody who doesn't know ... (1)

coolsnowmen (695297) | about 4 months ago | (#45642275)

My kingdom for mod points.

DEAL!
    Please send the deed for "Anonymous Coward's Kingdom" by way of African Swallow to neverland.
No takesies-backsies
   

Re:Anybody who doesn't know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642491)

Oh wow... you're going to take responsibility for stuff being posted as Anonymous Coward? My condolences.

Re:Anybody who doesn't know ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642631)

On a similar note, this article [alistapart.com] on the same lines of getting people to actually stop pretending they know and admit that they don't, isn't a bad thing.

Re:Anybody who doesn't know ... (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | about 4 months ago | (#45642773)

obligatory XKCD

Interesting timing of this posting. Last night I told two millennials in my wife's family that "Scotty" (James Doohan) lost a finger to a bullet just after D-Day (URL:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Doohan). I thought everyone knew this, but neither of them had heard this tidbit before.

Re:Anybody who doesn't know ... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#45642903)

Once you know, you're always looking for it. He tended to keep it out of the way.

Modesty, apparently: he didn't want to be thought of as thinking he was a hero.

Re:Anybody who doesn't know ... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642137)

Anybody on Slashdot who doesn't know who she is ... get the fuck out, because you're on the wrong website.

No shame in being a newbie as long as one is *trying* to be a self teacher and tries to not be a newbie forever. In this case, the shame is on the one trying to run newbies off.. You are going to die a lonely death.

Upon her shoulders*... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45641857)

is much of the modern computing world.

Without her Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc. would not be where they are today.

* this is in no way to diminish the other pioneers in the field - Touring, von Newman, von Lovelace, etc...

Re:Upon her shoulders*... (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#45641911)

is much of the modern computing world.

Without her Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc. would not be where they are today.

* this is in no way to diminish the other pioneers in the field - Touring, von Newman, von Lovelace, etc...

We stand upon the shoulders of giants - paraphrased from Bernard of Chartres

Re:Upon her shoulders*... (5, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about 4 months ago | (#45642155)

I suspect Jobs *would* be where he is today, since she wasn't researching cures for pancreatic cancer.

Re:Upon her shoulders*... (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 4 months ago | (#45643253)

I suspect Jobs *would* be where he is today, since she wasn't researching cures for pancreatic cancer.

Wouldn't matter, if it's true that Jobs had the treatable kind, since he ignored that route and went all New Age on it instead. Might as well have just loaded up on Laetrile.

Re:Upon her shoulders*... (2)

dubner (48575) | about 4 months ago | (#45642255)

Without her Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos, etc. would not be where they are today.

You mean Jobs would be still be alive and Bezos would have hair?

A pox on you, Admiral Hopper!

Re:Upon her shoulders*... (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#45642797)

* this is in no way to diminish the other pioneers in the field - Touring, von Newman, von Lovelace, etc...

The fact that you didn't manage to spell any of them right diminishes something.

COBOL (1, Interesting)

invid (163714) | about 4 months ago | (#45641861)

I think we can blame all the faults of COBOL on the fact that she wanted it to be human readable by business managers. What would your programming language look like if the Pointy-Haired Boss had to be able to understand it?

Re:COBOL (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45641905)

I knew somebody would bring that up. In defense of COBOL, 1. Look when it was invented. 2. Look how much staying power it has. 3. Look at the train wrecks caused by later efforts to make easier, more readable programming languages.

COBOL looks pretty good when you consider all that.

Re: COBOL (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642671)

COBOL is a sin, it only stayed so long because it's a pain to get rid of it and nobody want to deal with that crap.
Noone likes COBOL, for an excellent reason : it sucks by design.

Re:COBOL (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#45641923)

I think we can blame all the faults of COBOL on the fact that she wanted it to be human readable by business managers. What would your programming language look like if the Pointy-Haired Boss had to be able to understand it?

Let us not even broach the sins of PL/1

Re:COBOL (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 months ago | (#45642151)

PL/I pioneered the free-form syntax used by C, C++, PHP, Java, C# and most other modern languages.
What other sins has it committed?

Re:COBOL (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#45642441)

PL/I pioneered the free-form syntax used by C, C++, PHP, Java, C# and most other modern languages.
What other sins has it committed?

PL/1 incorporated all manner of ugly ways of doing things, borrowing some I/O from COBOL or having something else hacked into it. Inexplicably I had to go back to using PL/1 on one system implementation because the I/O library could hack large I/O buffers, where most other compiler libraries were incapable and was reminded what a sloppy mess of a language it was. You could do just about anything, but it didn't do much of it elegantly. Unless you documented heavily it was difficult to come back to and figure why you did something a particular way.

One fellow I knew who worked at IBM shunned it for most of the same reasons, it was a quick and dirty language, which was a dumping ground of interfaces.

Re:COBOL (4, Insightful)

dthanna (1294016) | about 4 months ago | (#45641933)

At the time you had... Fortran... and Assembler. COBOL was a godsend to the business community. Because of it companies actually invested in computer equipment to do things... that investment reduced the cost and increased its capabilities. Eventually allowing the creation of that smart phone in your pocket. If it wasn't for COBOL it is doubtful that companies would have made the investments.

Having programed in both COBOL and Fortran... I'll take COBOL for anything business related.

Yes, it's verbose. But, it was a product of it's time. And quite the amazing language if you know what you are doing with it.

Re:COBOL (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#45642063)

At the time you had... Fortran... and Assembler. COBOL was a godsend to the business community. Because of it companies actually invested in computer equipment to do things... that investment reduced the cost and increased its capabilities. Eventually allowing the creation of that smart phone in your pocket. If it wasn't for COBOL it is doubtful that companies would have made the investments.

Having programed in both COBOL and Fortran... I'll take COBOL for anything business related.

Yes, it's verbose. But, it was a product of it's time. And quite the amazing language if you know what you are doing with it.

Anyone who has actually been suffered to write business applications in FORTRAN IV* would rather be disemboweled by a pack of rabid were-weasels than have to do that again and COBOL would appear to be a gift from Heaven.

I began my education with, what I considered being taught a load of dead or dying languages, while Object Oriented languages were just on the horizon and Pascal and c were gaining degrees of acceptance. c is still around, but I haven't heard from Pascal in ages - it was fiddly, like Modula2 and seemed to embrace the wordiness of COBOL over the conciseness of c. I've converted systems written in COBOL and at least they were readable - what the coder was doing. FORTRAN business apps are nearly unintelligible.

* note: use of all caps

Re:COBOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642865)

I totally get where you are coming from. Fuck I'm old!

Re:COBOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642111)

Sigh. "Assembler" is a tool, not a language.

Re:COBOL (2)

dthanna (1294016) | about 4 months ago | (#45642873)

You, sir, are confused as you know not of what you speak.

There is 'The Assembler', and 'Assembler'. The 'The' (definite article) in 'The Assembler' is the thing (program) that assembles Assembler (language) into object code. That is then merged with the linker to a run-time to become an executable. Modern Assembler languages, and by extension 'Their Assemblers', contain macro capabilities - very similar in nature to #include in C (and other such languages). But, back in the 50's, when COBOL was written, not much macro assembler being written.

Assembler is a language. It has a grammar and a syntax - unless you wish to program in object or straight machine code.

But don't believe me (I wouldn't) - look for yourself - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_language [wikipedia.org]

Re:COBOL (2)

bws111 (1216812) | about 4 months ago | (#45642967)

Sigh yourself. The 'assembler' tool does not magically read your mind and spit out code. You must actually provide input to the assembler. And this input is in, wait for it, Assembler Language! Shocking, I know!

Re:COBOL (1)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | about 4 months ago | (#45641987)

What would your programming language look like if the Pointy-Haired Boss had to be able to understand it?

Ruby and Cucumber (at least for your test code)?

Re:COBOL (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 4 months ago | (#45642089)

What would your programming language look like if the Pointy-Haired Boss had to be able to understand it?

Ruby and Cucumber (at least for your test code)?

How about something from at least the 1960's or 70's? I can still hear those card punching machines - tick-tick-tack-tick-tick...

Re:COBOL (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642049)

I think we can blame all the faults of COBOL on the fact that she wanted it to be human readable by business managers. What would your programming language look like if the Pointy-Haired Boss had to be able to understand it?

Thank you for that.

You see, Ms. Hopper, being ahead of her time in MANY respects, knew that programming should be easily done in a human readable fashion.

Programming computers should be easy. Having difficult to learn languages defeats the purpose of these machines. Being able to program these things should be easy to everyone and the fact that it STILL isn't shows the ineptitude of the computer science world - or arrogance (dude, computers SHOULD be hard to program because it's for smart people or some such nonsense).

Computers are a tool, The fact that computer languages haven't evolved much since the 1960s is pretty sad.

..

Please oh please post a flame that languages have evolved so that I can spank you hardily - 50 years and we're still typing esoteric computer code?! Seriously?

If you think that is the way it is, then YOU have NO imagination.

Re:COBOL (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642157)

Agreed, I'm a non techie, and todays computers are less fun and useful than in the win95 era, when I could actually do things with them. Heck, the C64 held far more interest for the average person, you could at least easily learn how to program in basic.

Re:COBOL (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 4 months ago | (#45642517)

Being able to program these things should be easy to everyone and the fact that it STILL isn't shows the ineptitude of the computer science world

Programming a computer to do simple things IS easy. You want a program to add up a list of numbers, or compute the value of pi, and I can show you how to do that in a handful of lines of code.

The trouble is, people want programs that do complicated things like manage a large company's payroll system or model a 3D fantasy world. Even things that sound pretty simple, like managing your calendar appointments, become surprisingly complicated when you try to specify the requirements in detail.

What I believe is that while there are appropriate tools to for every job, there is no tool or language that makes inherent complexity go away or that makes thorny design problems easy. Neither is there such a thing -- in software or in the physical world -- as a tool that is ultimately powerful and flexible, and requires no skill or knowledge to use.

I do agree that computers are unnecessarily hard to use, but I disagree with you as to to cause. It's not the language and the process of writing and (usually) compiling code; it's the set of large concepts and abstractions one must master in order to do that effectively, and the mixed success with which OS, language, and application developers communicate those concepts and abstractions to their respective end users.

Re:COBOL (1)

dthanna (1294016) | about 4 months ago | (#45643051)

There are a few that are better than their predecessors....I'll posit SAS and Mathmatica / Wolfram as examples. Mathmatica on my R-Pi - yum.. a bit slow, but still great (Thanks Stephen!).

But, I would agree, that in general we have peaked at C and complexity has abounded due to K&R's 'I hate to type' mantra. Just about every popular language in the last 30 years has been 'C-like' - C, C++, C#, Java, Python, JavaScript, etc. Some are better than others, but all have a coding style that can be overly dense.

Re:COBOL (0)

slapout (93640) | about 4 months ago | (#45643127)

I agree that we should try to make things simple. But I also think that COBOL's verbosity gets in the way of that. For example, I find:

For i = 1 to 100
    ' Do work here
Next

to be simpler and easier to understand than

PERFORM VARYING WS-I FROM 1 BY 1 UNTIL WS-I = 100
* DO WORK HERE
END PERFORM

Re:COBOL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642177)

No. The only fault here is that you are too fucking stupid to understand why that is a "Good Thing (tm)".

You utter fucking moron.

Re:COBOL (1)

invid (163714) | about 4 months ago | (#45643303)

Here I am pointing out that what many people consider to be a problem with COBOL, that it is too wordy, has in fact a functional purpose. Although, using the word PLUS for '+' did go a bit too far. I have to assume most business managers know what '+' means.

Re:COBOL (3)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#45642227)

What would your programming language look like if the Pointy-Haired Boss had to be able to understand it?

Lots of comments, very little actual code.

When I was in school, we had to have over 50% comments or the TA wouldn't even try to grade your program. The habit was a good one, and although I don't always get to the 50% I still put a lot of comments in my code.

Come to think of it, making your code understandable by the PHB is not a bad goal. If the PHB can understand what you are doing, the next poor programmer (which might be you a few months after you have forgotten the project) will have an easier job fixing something.

Re:COBOL (1)

Ultracrepidarian (576183) | about 4 months ago | (#45642539)

We are assuming that the code actually does what the comment says.

Re:COBOL (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 4 months ago | (#45642771)

True, but I would assume that's a given in most cases.. Not all, just most..

Re:COBOL (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 4 months ago | (#45643279)

True, but I would assume that's a given in most cases.. Not all, just most..

I take it you don't work in the business, then.

I think one of the "Murphy" laws covers what happens to code once you document it.

Re:COBOL (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 4 months ago | (#45642515)

The WTF blog once featured a tale of woe by a contributor about his interview with a headhunter:

-Why do you want to change jobs?
-My employer wants me to become a COBOL programmer.
-So, you don't like to learn new things?

syntax or logic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642835)

my experience has been that PHB's struggle far more with LOGIC (do it this way unless it's the 2nd Tuesday of the month & a full moon business rules) than code itself...

// to do: UML joke goes here (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 4 months ago | (#45642855)

What would your programming language look like if the Pointy-Haired Boss had to be able to understand it?

It'd have a lot more pictures in it.

Say, isn't it drag/drop/drool/click programming's turn at the top of the hype heap again?

Re:COBOL (1)

camperdave (969942) | about 4 months ago | (#45643207)

...human readable by business managers...

Ah!!! That explains a lot.

Um... except why anything needed by business managers needed to be HUMAN readable.

mixed feelings... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45641893)

she's definitely historically significant but as someone who had the misfortune of running MVS/CICS/VSAM applications for several years I have a hard time celebrating anything associated with COBOL...

Women in IT (3, Funny)

slapout (93640) | about 4 months ago | (#45641957)

You know why there aren't a lot of women in IT now, right? It's because after Grace Hopper unleashed COBOL, we're been leery about letting them in.

(It's a joke! Claim down.)

Whatever (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45641963)

So many of these google doodles reek of "see, seeeeee, women can do computers and tech stuff too!"

Yes they can, but if google does even does this twice a year, then they're vastly overstating the value and frequency female historical and potential future contributions in anything of significance.

pi is the realm of men.
pie is the realm of women.

The new geek chic appears to be swallowing the wet-dreams of marxist/feminist/post-modern cultural critique and historical revisionism whole, so commence with the downvoting and white-knighting!

Re:Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642007)

Exactly my thoughts as well.

Idiot white men.

Re:Whatever (3, Interesting)

Entropius (188861) | about 4 months ago | (#45642687)

The realm of women is whatever they want it to be. There is substantial cultural inertia, especially in places like the Southeast US, that impedes young women from trying to "do computers and tech stuff", and so the lampshading of legitimate achievements made by folks like Hopper is no bad thing. Yes, were she male she wouldn't get quite as many accolades, but so? She was a pioneer, and there is no shame in pointing out to today's young women "want to become a computer scientist? You're in good company."

I have as much distaste for postmodern cultural wankery as you, but informing women that they are welcome in the scientific community ain't that.

I taught computational physics for a couple of years as a grad student. Of the students that I considered absolutely top-notch, about 60% were women (where the difference from 50% is statistical noise). As far as physics went, they were basically the same as the men.

Re:Whatever (2)

Hardhead_7 (987030) | about 4 months ago | (#45643061)

I completely agree, except the part where you said she wouldn't get quite as many accolades. She wrote the first compiler. That's fucking seminal! Who else can claim a first that big?

many early programmers were female (0)

peter303 (12292) | about 4 months ago | (#45642003)

Before the late 1940s the word "computer" refered to clerks who computed mathematical tables (e.g. weapon trajectories) by hand or mechanical calculator. All these clerks were female and their bosses males. So when the first anlog and digital computers came along in the late 1940s, some of their clerks became their programmers. Programming was by rewiring switchboards or punch tape in those days. The electrical engineers and mathmaticians who built the hardware were mostly male. Soem of them migrated into software too.

Re:many early programmers were female (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642093)

Programming was by rewiring switchboards or punch tape in those days. ...The electrical engineers and mathmaticians who built the hardware were mostly male.

And those males would refer to those able, competent women as "Rosies" (taken from "Rosie the Riveter"). Once WWII was over men returned to the job market, and those women mostly got displaced.

Re:many early programmers were female (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about 4 months ago | (#45642453)

Not really. Both before and after WWII “computers” was a female dominated field, like nurses or teachers.

After WWII, well, I am not sure displaced is the right word. We are talking about a rapidly evolving field. Most of the jobs that men took in the computer field just did not exist at the start of the war. Virgin ground so to say. Not so much as displacing but rather being left behind.

Re:many early programmers were female (2)

SirGarlon (845873) | about 4 months ago | (#45642235)

There is a documentary about this, which I saw on Netflix (I don't remember if it was streaming or DVD) called "Top Secret Rosies." I knew about that history from my physics and math background, but my wife was amazed to hear it. Anyway, the film is worth watching.

Re:many early programmers were female (1)

Deadstick (535032) | about 4 months ago | (#45642479)

I had the pleasure of speaking with one of the Rosies some years back. I was trying to line her up as a speaker at my workplace's "Women's Issues" month, but she lived too far away and the company wouldn't buy the plane ticket.

They have an association, naturally...they call their daughters Rosettes and their sons Rivets.

I wondered if this carried an academic stigma (1)

peter303 (12292) | about 4 months ago | (#45642761)

When I was at MIT in the 1970s there was not an official computer science major yet, even though were several prominant computer science labs that every student wanted to play in. Compuer science was a minor in EE, ME, and business. In 1980 MIT recognized a formal CS degree.
I wondered if the procrastination was due to the "taint" of programming being a trade-school craft and not a real scientific discipline. And that in turn due to its early female participation.

mod 3own (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642047)

clearly. There else up their aases

Who cares! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642077)

The doodle is a topic of interest? You've got to be kidding me.

Forgiveness (2)

SonnyDog09 (1500475) | about 4 months ago | (#45642087)

One of my favorite quotes is from her: "It is far easier to ask for forgiveness than permission."

Google Google Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642185)

Bing is doing the same thing but no mention of them.
 
I guess that's what you get when there's nothing here but a bunch of Fandroids.
 
A much more interesting article is about how Google wants to ban civilians (ie Amazon) from building a drone delivery system. So Google is going to bend the ear of the legislature to try to get an unfair edge against a competitor. Why isn't that being reported on? Why not headlines about the evil inherent in Google?

Re:Google Google Google (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 4 months ago | (#45642571)

Hmmm... when I go to bing.com today I see an 1800s difference engine. No mention of Admiral Hopper. [imgur.com]

Ooh! I found it! If you mouse over the difference engine, there's a box on the left that, when you mouse over it, says that today is the birthday of... shoot--I have to click the link.

Re:Google Google Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642755)

Your point being?
 
You're just another goosestepping Fandroid.

Re:Google Google Google (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 4 months ago | (#45643263)

My point was that Bing was *not* doing the same thing, as the AC was claiming. Mentioning her in an obscurely hidden side-link is very different than featuring her prominently where everyone will see.

met her 30 years ago. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642269)

I got to MEET her. I was a faculty brat at Syracuse where she was a graduation speaker, and through a lot of begging, my dad got me a seat at the speakers table, and she held forth, drinking straight scotch, smoking unfiltered Pall Malls and swearing for two hours. One of the best moments in my life. I'll never forget it, and she's been an inspiration through my career.

And I have a nanosecond.

Google Doodle - the same stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#45642299)

every year - SSDD ad infinitum

How long is a nanosecond (1)

aslvstr (659823) | about 4 months ago | (#45642305)

I attended a talk she gave in the early 80's. She was quite an entertaining speaker. She was able to describe some concepts in an easy way to undersand way. Like how long is a millisecond or a nanosecond? She handed out nanoseconds at the end. I still have that little 11.8 inch piece of wire.

Re:How long is a nanosecond (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | about 4 months ago | (#45642913)

She handed out nanoseconds at the end.

I was fortunate to hear her speak on two occasions in the 70s. Packed up with all my XDS/SDS stuff is a pair of Grace's nanoseconds.

Fond memories of a grand lady... (2)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about 4 months ago | (#45642411)

I have fond memories of her. On the one occasion I got to see her in person, I was a member of a student ACM chapter, and she was our guest speaker. I remember that she had very strong opinions, particularly about IBM.

At the time, the System 360 was all the rage, and had blue cabinets. She brought an 8080 to the presentation in a small, blue plastic case, commenting that she'd heard computers came in blue boxes. She also commented (again about the 360) that it couldn't be much of a machine, since it spent half of its time talking to itself, a reference to the operating system overhead.

I've often wondered what she'd think of computers and operating systems today, particularly Windows and Linux.

R.I.P. Grace Hopper. You're a hard lady to forget!

Glad to have heard her speak live (1)

dreamweaver7777 (204293) | about 4 months ago | (#45642493)

I had the honor of hearing her speak as a guest lecturer when I attended Ohio State. I remember her showing us the nanoseconds! An original geek, an outstanding technologist, a wonderful human being. And, oh yes, a woman.

Grace used CamelCase? I think not! (1)

theodp (442580) | about 4 months ago | (#45642601)

Back in the day, COBOL names were UPPERCASE and used hyphens. So, Grace would have used CURRENT-YEAR, not CurrentYear, as the Google Doodle does. :-)

Congratulations on your 7th birthday! (4, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 4 months ago | (#45642603)

Only allowed two digit ages and forgot to handle the overflow flag.

Some fun Grace Hopper info (3, Informative)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 4 months ago | (#45642617)

"If it's good idea, go ahead and do it. It's much easier to apologize than it is to get permission." --Grace Hopper

* credited with popularizing the term "debugging" for fixing computer glitches

* Navy destroyer USS Hopper (DDG-70) is named for her, as was the Cray XE6 "Hopper" supercomputer at NERSC.

* at the age of seven she decided to determine how an alarm clock worked, and dismantled seven...

* bachelor's degree in mathematics and physics

* wrote her own compiler in 1952.. "Nobody believed that," she said. "I had a running compiler and nobody would touch it. They told me computers could only do arithmetic."

More here of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper [wikipedia.org]

Re:Some fun Grace Hopper info (1)

barlevg (2111272) | about 4 months ago | (#45643045)

* credited with popularizing the term "debugging" for fixing computer glitches

You left out the story of why it's called debugging! From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

While she was working on a Mark II Computer at Harvard University, her associates discovered a moth stuck in a relay and thereby impeding operation, whereupon she remarked that they were "debugging" the system.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...