(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fabhaykant.in%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F10%2F298278_1956503686308_1654211853_1514177_1267288524_n.jpg&hash=4bf5a5a12022c3f7b3e63e206969c8693f638b0e)
QuoteThe tributes to Dennis Ritchie won't match the river of praise that spilled out over the web after the death of Steve Jobs. But they should.
And then some.
"When Steve Jobs died last week, there was a huge outcry, and that was very moving and justified. But Dennis had a bigger effect, and the public doesn't even know who he is," says Rob Pike, the programming legend and current Googler who spent 20 years working across the hall from Ritchie at the famed Bell Labs.
On Wednesday evening, with a post to Google+, Pike announced that Ritchie had died at his home in New Jersey over the weekend after a long illness, and though the response from hardcore techies was immense, the collective eulogy from the web at large doesn't quite do justice to Ritchie's sweeping influence on the modern world.
Dennis Ritchie is the father of the C programming language, and with fellow Bell Labs researcher Ken Thompson, he used C to build UNIX, the operating system that so much of the world is built on -- including the Apple empire overseen by Steve Jobs.
CNN's GeekOut blog: Without Ritchie, you wouldn't be reading this
"Pretty much everything on the web uses those two things: C and UNIX," Pike tells Wired. "The browsers are written in C. The UNIX kernel — that pretty much the entire Internet runs on -- is written in C. Web servers are written in C, and if they're not, they're written in Java or C++, which are C derivatives, or Python or Ruby, which are implemented in C. And all of the network hardware running these programs I can almost guarantee were written in C.
"It's really hard to overstate how much of the modern information economy is built on the work Dennis did."
Even Windows was once written in C, he adds, and UNIX underpins both Mac OS X, Apple's desktop operating system, and iOS, which runs the iPhone and the iPad. "Jobs was the king of the visible, and Ritchie is the king of what is largely invisible," says Martin Rinard, professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT and a member of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.
"Jobs' genius is that he builds these products that people really like to use because he has taste and can build things that people really find compelling. Ritchie built things that technologists were able to use to build core infrastructure that people don't necessarily see much anymore, but they use everyday."
From B to C
Dennis Ritchie built C because he and Ken Thompson needed a better way to build UNIX. The original UNIX kernel was written in assembly language, but they soon decided they needed a "higher level" language, something that would give them more control over all the data that spanned the OS. Around 1970, they tried building a second version with Fortran, but this didn't quite cut it, and Ritchie proposed a new language based on a Thompson creation known as B.
Depending on which legend you believe, B was named either for Thompson's wife Bonnie or BCPL, a language developed at Cambridge in the mid-60s. Whatever the case, B begat C.
B was an interpreted language -- meaning it was executed by an intermediate piece of software running atop a CPU -- but C was a compiled language. It was translated into machine code, and then directly executed on the CPU. But in those days, C was considered a high-level language. It would give Ritchie and Thompson the flexibility they needed, but at the same time, it would be fast.
That first version of the language wasn't all that different from C as we know it today -- though it was a tad simpler. It offered full data structures and "types" for defining variables, and this is what Richie and Thompson used to build their new UNIX kernel. "They built C to write a program," says Pike, who would join Bell Labs 10 years later. "And the program they wanted to write was the UNIX kernel."
Ritchie's running joke was that C had "the power of assembly language and the convenience of ... assembly language." In other words, he acknowledged that C was a less-than-gorgeous creation that still ran very close to the hardware. Today, it's considered a low-level language, not high. But Ritchie's joke didn't quite do justice to the new language. In offering true data structures, it operated at a level that was just high enough.
"When you're writing a large program -- and that's what UNIX was -- you have to manage the interactions between all sorts of different components: all the users, the file system, the disks, the program execution, and in order to manage that effectively, you need to have a good representation of the information you're working with. That's what we call data structures," Pike says.
"To write a kernel without a data structure and have it be as consist and graceful as UNIX would have been a much, much harder challenge. They needed a way to group all that data together, and they didn't have that with Fortran."
At the time, it was an unusual way to write an operating system, and this is what allowed Ritchie and Thompson to eventually imagine porting the OS to other platforms, which they did in the late 70s. "That opened the floodgates for UNIX running everywhere," Pike says. "It was all made possible by C."
Apple, Microsoft and beyond
At the same time, C forged its own way in the world, moving from Bell Labs to the world's universities and to Microsoft, the breakout software company of the 1980s. "The development of the C programming language was a huge step forward and was the right middle ground ... C struck exactly the right balance, to let you write at a high level and be much more productive, but when you needed to, you could control exactly what happened," says Bill Dally, chief scientist of NVIDIA and Bell Professor of Engineering at Stanford. "[It] set the tone for the way that programming was done for several decades."
As Pike points out, the data structures that Richie built into C eventually gave rise to the object-oriented paradigm used by modern languages such as C++ and Java.
The revolution began in 1973, when Ritchie published his research paper on the language, and five years later, he and colleague Brian Kernighan released the definitive C book: The C Programming Language. Kernighan had written the early tutorials for the language, and at some point, he "twisted Dennis' arm" into writing a book with him.
Pike read the book while still an undergraduate at the University of Toronto, picking it up one afternoon while heading home for a sick day. "That reference manual is a model of clarity and readability compared to latter manuals. It is justifiably a classic," he says. "I read it while sick in bed, and it made me forget that I was sick."
Like many university students, Pike had already started using the language. It had spread across college campuses because Bell Labs started giving away the UNIX source code. Among so many other things, the operating system gave rise to the modern open source movement. Pike isn't overstating it when says the influence of Ritchie's work can't be overstated, and though Ritchie received the Turing Award in 1983 and the National Medal of Technology in 1998, he still hasn't gotten his due.
As Kernighan and Pike describe him, Ritchie was an unusually private person. "I worked across the hall from him for more than 20 years, and yet I feel like a don't knew him all that well," Pike says. But this doesn't quite explain his low profile. Steve Jobs was a private person, but his insistence on privacy only fueled the cult of personality that surrounded him.
Ritchie lived in a very different time and worked in a very different environment than someone like Jobs. It only makes sense that he wouldn't get his due. But those who matter understand the mark he left. "There's that line from Newton about standing on the shoulders of giants," says Kernighan. "We're all standing on Dennis' shoulders."
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/14/tech/innovation/dennis-ritchie-obit-bell-labs/index.html
I just learned the guy had died today. Blimey did the world keep that one quiet.
All of my memories about UNIX are bad. I was in university, and we were forced to use designated computer terminals to do a number of vital admin tasks. It was a nightmare. I looked at that terminal and I had no idea what to do. In the end I asked an Ultima Online friend to use a remote access programme to sorta hack into it and got the stuff that I needed.
I hate UNIX :mad:
Quote from: Monoriu on November 09, 2011, 04:55:16 AM
All of my memories about UNIX are bad. I was in university, and we were forced to use designated computer terminals to do a number of vital admin tasks. It was a nightmare. I looked at that terminal and I had no idea what to do. In the end I asked an Ultima Online friend to use a remote access programme to sorta hack into it and got the stuff that I needed.
I hate UNIX :mad:
Yeah, well UNIX doesn't like dyed int eh wool commies either.
Didn't read the article at all, but isn't it pretty much de rigueur when a famous inventor or thinker dies for some people to insist that that his ideas or inventions were actually stolen / plagiarized? In other words, don't wake me up till this actually goes anywhere significant.
American industrialists have a long and proud history of stealing the ideas or property of their betters and capitalizing on them. It's what made America great.
For this reason, it's hard to care about the crocodile tears shed when Chi-com spies steal American tech.
Sounds like the guy made a remarkable contribution, but the bitching that 'why isn't he getting the accolades that Jobs is'?
Sorry, but :rolleyes:
Ritche helped invent C, which is an underpinning of UNIX and most computer languages. OS X is UNIX based, and used a variant of C for it's programming. But Ritchie did that in the early 70s - 40 years ago.
Jobs made a huge contribution to computing as well in the 70s - a little thing called the Apple II. And if that's all he did, when he passed away he'd get some level of recognition from the hard core geekc ommunity too.
But Jobs has been busy since the 70s, and has done an awful lot to build on his legacy besides the Apple II and Macintosh.
Ritchie didn't just help invent C, he was also vital in creating UNIX and in getting it ported to different systems. Before that an operating system was custom built for one type of computer and couldn't be easily transitioned from one to another. This is an innovation that Apple resisted for years, and still isn't too fond of. Meanwhile you have Linux and BSD that can run on just about anything.
In addition to developing these technologies through his writing he has taught a couple of generations how to use them.
Jobs might have had a continuing impact on how technology looks, but very few people were more important than Ritchie in getting it to work.
Quote from: frunk on November 09, 2011, 09:59:24 AM
Jobs might have had a continuing impact on how technology looks,
Are you deliberately trying to minimize Jobs influence?
Obviously Jobs had a keen interest in industrial design, but that's hardly his most important influence. His influence was first in creating the entire personal computer revolution, then in profoundly changing how we interact with computers by popularizing the GUI, and then the touch interface.
If Ritchie didn't properly capitalize his inventions or craft them into a worldwide brand of products known for their sleek design that sounds like his fault.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:05:31 AM
Are you deliberately trying to minimize Jobs influence?
No more than you were trying to minimize Ritchie's.
I don't see why it should matter if a person's immediate impact was several years ago or right now. Your argument seems to be that since Ritchie hasn't done much lately he doesn't deserve the accolades that Jobs has received. When you get to the meat of it, Ritchie has had a greater influence on what your computer is doing right now than Jobs. What it looks like, how you interact with it is Jobs. Jobs was great at finding intuitive and effective ways of interacting with a computer. How a computer actually is programmed is all Ritchie.
Quote from: frunk on November 09, 2011, 10:34:30 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:05:31 AM
Are you deliberately trying to minimize Jobs influence?
No more than you were trying to minimize Ritchie's.
I don't see why it should matter if a person's immediate impact was several years ago or right now. Your argument seems to be that since Ritchie hasn't done much lately he doesn't deserve the accolades that Jobs has received. When you get to the meat of it, Ritchie has had a greater influence on what your computer is doing right now than Jobs. What it looks like, how you interact with it is Jobs. Jobs was great at finding intuitive and effective ways of interacting with a computer. How a computer actually is programmed is all Ritchie.
I'm certainly not trying to minimize Ritchie's influence.
But it's fairly common knowledge that the world is very much a "what have you done for me recently" kind of place. Whenever someone passes away it gets far more attention when they are in the height of their career than if their acheivements were decades in the past.
And - Jobs did have a tremendous influence on how I'm using the very computer in front of me. Not only because I'm using a mouse, but because I'm using an entire computer that sits on my desk. Without Jobs and the PC revolution, I might very well be working on a dumb terminal attached to a mainframe.
And you can say "well if it wasn't Jobs, it would have been someone else", but, you could say the same thing about Ritchie as well.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
And you can say "well if it wasn't Jobs, it would have been someone else", but, you could say the same thing about Ritchie as well.
Not from what i understand. What made Jobs famous is that he took what other created and repackaged it. He was very good at it, but in essense that's what he did. Ritchie created his contribution to computers
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:05:31 AM
Are you deliberately trying to minimize Jobs influence?
Obviously Jobs had a keen interest in industrial design, but that's hardly his most important influence. His influence was first in creating the entire personal computer revolution, then in profoundly changing how we interact with computers by popularizing the GUI, and then the touch interface.
Overstatement much? :rolleyes:
Quote from: HVC on November 09, 2011, 10:47:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
And you can say "well if it wasn't Jobs, it would have been someone else", but, you could say the same thing about Ritchie as well.
Not from what i understand. What made Jobs famous is that he took what other created and repackaged it.
Hollywood repackaged moving pictures. Ford repackaged a fuel engine. St. Paul repackaged Jewish and Greek philosophy.
Finding a creative way of popularizing someone else's invention is often a greater feat than the invention itself - and, appropriately, often carries a greater fame and recognition (not to mention, riches).
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2011, 10:50:34 AM
Quote from: HVC on November 09, 2011, 10:47:08 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
And you can say "well if it wasn't Jobs, it would have been someone else", but, you could say the same thing about Ritchie as well.
Not from what i understand. What made Jobs famous is that he took what other created and repackaged it.
Hollywood repackaged moving pictures. Ford repackaged a fuel engine. St. Paul repackaged Jewish and Greek philosophy.
Finding a creative way of popularizing someone else's invention is often a greater feat than the invention itself - and, appropriately, often carries a greater fame and recognition (not to mention, riches).
I'm not saying Jobs wasn't important, just that the likelyhood of another jobs coming along is far greater than another Ritchie coming along.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
But it's fairly common knowledge that the world is very much a "what have you done for me recently" kind of place. Whenever someone passes away it gets far more attention when they are in the height of their career than if their acheivements were decades in the past.
Quite so, which is why people who crave celebrity status like Jobs will always seem more important to those who don't pay a lot of attention to the details.
QuoteAnd - Jobs did have a tremendous influence on how I'm using the very computer in front of me. Not only because I'm using a mouse, but because I'm using an entire computer that sits on my desk. Without Jobs and the PC revolution, I might very well be working on a dumb terminal attached to a mainframe.
I suspect that not even you would be sticking with Apple if they hadn't had Jobs and still just offered terminals attached to mainframes.
Personal computers existed before Jobs and his impact was more on appearance than function. While Macs do some things better than PCs (and vice-versa) there is nothign a Mac does that a PC cannot.
QuoteAnd you can say "well if it wasn't Jobs, it would have been someone else", but, you could say the same thing about Ritchie as well.
Without Ritchie it would have been someone who did things differently and may not have sought widespread applicability as a matter of aesthetics. Jobs influenced a brand; Ritchie influenced an industry.
Jobs had the bigger ego and sought fame, and so is remembered; Ritchie didn't and so isn't. That's the way the world is. Al Capone is more famous than Eliot Ness.
Quote from: HVC on November 09, 2011, 10:54:55 AM
I'm not saying Jobs wasn't important, just that the likelyhood of another jobs coming along is far greater than another Ritchie coming along.
Sorta true; I think the odds of another Jobs in terms of the genius is low, but the odds of someone filling Job's slot is greater than that of someone filling Ritchie's slot.
My argument is more that Job's genius wasn't as important as Ritchie's though it was as genuine.
Some people are better businessmen then others. Look at Edison and Tesla. Edison died rich and famous, Tesla died poor and unknown.
Tesla was assassinated.
Originality is overrated. Most useful contributions to human society involve copying something that someone else has done but finding a way to apply the technique or technology in a more practical way that has real mass impact. The ancients came up with the concept of the steam engines, and working prototypes were built in the Rennaissance, but it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution that the technology was harnassed and applied in a way to have a mass impact. that is why we remember James Watt but not Newcomen or the obscure pre-moderns that did pioneering work.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 10:57:07 AMPersonal computers existed before Jobs and his impact was more on appearance than function.
Uhm yes, that's the fucking point. A Zegna suit fulfills the same purpose as a burlap sack. A Manolo Blahnik shoe fulfills the same purpose as a wooden clog. Yet noone sane claims that there is no difference between them (or that the difference is functionality only).
In fact, the aesthetics plays an important part as to why people choose Apple products, so discounting this as inconsequential is rather silly. The genius of Jobs was the realization that computers and computer-like products can be a status symbol/accessory/functional art work as much as a car, a pair of shoes, clothes or furniture can be.
I think Jobs is so hated (in addition to being so loved) because he took computers out of the dank, drab caves of computer nerds and gave it to the lofty, flighty show rooms of the artists and super models. Ritchie was a dwarf, Jobs was an elf. The twain shall never meet or see eye to eye.
That only works if you are gay.
Vecna suit?
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2011, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 10:57:07 AMPersonal computers existed before Jobs and his impact was more on appearance than function.
Uhm yes, that's the fucking point. A Zegna suit fulfills the same purpose as a burlap sack. A Manolo Blahnik shoe fulfills the same purpose as a wooden clog. Yet noone sane claims that there is no difference between them (or that the difference is functionality only).
In fact, the aesthetics plays an important part as to why people choose Apple products, so discounting this as inconsequential is rather silly. The genius of Jobs was the realization that computers and computer-like products can be a status symbol/accessory/functional art work as much as a car, a pair of shoes, clothes or furniture can be.
I think Jobs is so hated (in addition to being so loved) because he took computers out of the dank, drab caves of computer nerds and gave it to the lofty, flighty show rooms of the artists and super models. Ritchie was a dwarf, Jobs was an elf. The twain shall never meet or see eye to eye.
:huh:
So Jobs is an amazing inventor because he created an aesthetically pleasant version?
While people recognize the difference between a manolo and a wooden clog (the difference in shape is easy to see when presented with both), I'm not sure most would call Manolo a great inventor.
Velcro suit?
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
I'm certainly not trying to minimize Ritchie's influence.
But it's fairly common knowledge that the world is very much a "what have you done for me recently" kind of place. Whenever someone passes away it gets far more attention when they are in the height of their career than if their acheivements were decades in the past.
I don't see why we should encourage that, and highlighting the important achievements of Ritchie is worth the time.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
And - Jobs did have a tremendous influence on how I'm using the very computer in front of me. Not only because I'm using a mouse, but because I'm using an entire computer that sits on my desk. Without Jobs and the PC revolution, I might very well be working on a dumb terminal attached to a mainframe.
And you can say "well if it wasn't Jobs, it would have been someone else", but, you could say the same thing about Ritchie as well.
I'm not disagreeing with any of this, and I certainly didn't bring up the "someone else" argument. Ritchie's contributions are tougher to see and easier to ignore, which only makes it more important that they are brought up. If they aren't raised now they probably won't be later.
Was C really that much of a breakthrough? I ask out of ignorance.
Some of the important syntactic elements of C existed in some form in other languages, although C was the first to combine them together and strip out a lot of the uglier control and whitespace requirements. Other processing and syntax elements it originated. It doesn't stray too far from Assembly, at least compared to more modern languages, but is significantly easier to program in. From the start C was implemented on different platforms as well, meaning that it is portable and reusable.
The long lasting influence of C, apart from its continued direct use, is other programming languages that use the same or similar syntax (Java, C++, C#, Python, JavaScript and many others). Between them C flavor syntax accounts for probably 99% of the programming that gets done. Sometimes C is still used as an intermediary language for portability.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 10:57:07 AM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 10:36:58 AM
But it's fairly common knowledge that the world is very much a "what have you done for me recently" kind of place. Whenever someone passes away it gets far more attention when they are in the height of their career than if their acheivements were decades in the past.
Quite so, which is why people who crave celebrity status like Jobs will always seem more important to those who don't pay a lot of attention to the details.
QuoteAnd - Jobs did have a tremendous influence on how I'm using the very computer in front of me. Not only because I'm using a mouse, but because I'm using an entire computer that sits on my desk. Without Jobs and the PC revolution, I might very well be working on a dumb terminal attached to a mainframe.
I suspect that not even you would be sticking with Apple if they hadn't had Jobs and still just offered terminals attached to mainframes.
Personal computers existed before Jobs and his impact was more on appearance than function. While Macs do some things better than PCs (and vice-versa) there is nothign a Mac does that a PC cannot.
You're getting blind-sided by focusing on Macs. Macs are wonderful, and popularized the GUI, but yes by 1984 the personal computer was common, and the Mac was just another personal computer.
But go back to the Apple I and Apple II in the late 70s. The personal computer existed only as a hobby, and required you to asseble it yourself (down to soldering the circuitboard). It was Jobs and Woz who sold the first true personal computer. When IBM came along with the IBM PC the Apple II (and a few others) had been around for several years.
Apple never made dumb terminals. Their entire
raison d'être was the personal computer.
Beyond that - did Jobs crave attention? Perhaps. He certainly was the public face of Apple (even if he fiercely protected his personal privacy).
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2011, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 10:57:07 AMPersonal computers existed before Jobs and his impact was more on appearance than function.
Uhm yes, that's the fucking point. A Zegna suit fulfills the same purpose as a burlap sack. A Manolo Blahnik shoe fulfills the same purpose as a wooden clog. Yet noone sane claims that there is no difference between them (or that the difference is functionality only).
In fact, the aesthetics plays an important part as to why people choose Apple products, so discounting this as inconsequential is rather silly. The genius of Jobs was the realization that computers and computer-like products can be a status symbol/accessory/functional art work as much as a car, a pair of shoes, clothes or furniture can be.
I think Jobs is so hated (in addition to being so loved) because he took computers out of the dank, drab caves of computer nerds and gave it to the lofty, flighty show rooms of the artists and super models. Ritchie was a dwarf, Jobs was an elf. The twain shall never meet or see eye to eye.
When discussing Jobs legacy, only you would start and finish with design. :(
Quote from: Martinus on November 09, 2011, 11:19:08 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 10:57:07 AMPersonal computers existed before Jobs and his impact was more on appearance than function.
Uhm yes, that's the fucking point. A Zegna suit fulfills the same purpose as a burlap sack. A Manolo Blahnik shoe fulfills the same purpose as a wooden clog. Yet noone sane claims that there is no difference between them (or that the difference is functionality only).
I have read a lot of CC's strawmen, and yet none of them have recently been so far off as this one.
hen you invent a strawman, invent one that makes sense. The argument that a "Zegna suit fulfills the same purpose as a burlap sack" is so obviously fucking stupid and wrong that it doesn't even qualify as a proper strawmman argument.
QuoteIn fact, the aesthetics plays an important part as to why people choose Apple products, so discounting this as inconsequential is rather silly.
Not as silly as arguing that anyone says that aesthetics are inconsequential. It is true that most people won't pay double the price for a product that is only esthetically different, but enough will that Apple is rich.
QuoteThe genius of Jobs was the realization that computers and computer-like products can be a status symbol/accessory/functional art work as much as a car, a pair of shoes, clothes or furniture can be.
The genius of Jobs wasn't so much in realizing that people would pay a significant premium for aesthetics, but in designing an aesthetic that these people would embrace. Lots of people failed at this.
QuoteI think Jobs is so hated (in addition to being so loved) because he took computers out of the dank, drab caves of computer nerds and gave it to the lofty, flighty show rooms of the artists and super models. Ritchie was a dwarf, Jobs was an elf. The twain shall never meet or see eye to eye.
I don't think you have a clue as to the actual significance of either man. They didn't disagree on anything, insofar as I know, and they probably saw eye-to-eye on many things. I think Jobs is "hated" (if he is at all hated) because he celebrated the triumph of form over substance. Some people cannot stand that, I guess.
The analogy to make is that Ritchie built the house, and Jobs painted, furnished, and decorated all the rooms. The house would sell without the superlative interior design work, but it wouldn't sell for nearly as much, and maybe not please its owners nearly as much.
Nonetheless, the fact remains that, without Ritchie, there would be no Mac or iPhone. Without Jobs, there would be a Mac and iPhone but they wouldn't work as well or look so good.
I dunno, I would keep Potatoes in Zegna suit. Zegna is that video game company right?
Nothing beats a tracksuit, as long as it's well-tailored.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 12:26:44 PM
You're getting blind-sided by focusing on Macs. Macs are wonderful, and popularized the GUI, but yes by 1984 the personal computer was common, and the Mac was just another personal computer.
But go back to the Apple I and Apple II in the late 70s. The personal computer existed only as a hobby, and required you to asseble it yourself (down to soldering the circuitboard). It was Jobs and Woz who sold the first true personal computer. When IBM came along with the IBM PC the Apple II (and a few others) had been around for several years.
I think you are getting blindsided by focusing on the IBM PC. The PC was not the first PC IBM made, nor the first anyone but Apple made. The IBM 5100 came out almost two years before even the Apple I, and the HP 9830 two years before that. None of them were kits.
Jobs definitely was a genius at making things easy to use, and there is no question that the Apple II accelerated the acceptance of the PC as part of education and daily life, but all it did was accelerate a trend. Before Jobs came along, PC use was growing. Before Ritchie came alone, no one was even trying to write machine-codable-but-human-readable programming languages, as far as I can tell. C was a real breakthrough, and, of course, Unix re-wrote the book. Jobs never re-wrote the book.
Another difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products. The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2011, 01:17:38 PM
Another difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products. The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.
Isn't more like people simply don't realize they use Ritchie's products as they have never heard of him?
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 01:15:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 12:26:44 PM
You're getting blind-sided by focusing on Macs. Macs are wonderful, and popularized the GUI, but yes by 1984 the personal computer was common, and the Mac was just another personal computer.
But go back to the Apple I and Apple II in the late 70s. The personal computer existed only as a hobby, and required you to asseble it yourself (down to soldering the circuitboard). It was Jobs and Woz who sold the first true personal computer. When IBM came along with the IBM PC the Apple II (and a few others) had been around for several years.
I think you are getting blindsided by focusing on the IBM PC. The PC was not the first PC IBM made, nor the first anyone but Apple made. The IBM 5100 came out almost two years before even the Apple I, and the HP 9830 two years before that. None of them were kits.
Jobs definitely was a genius at making things easy to use, and there is no question that the Apple II accelerated the acceptance of the PC as part of education and daily life, but all it did was accelerate a trend. Before Jobs came along, PC use was growing. Before Ritchie came alone, no one was even trying to write machine-codable-but-human-readable programming languages, as far as I can tell. C was a real breakthrough, and, of course, Unix re-wrote the book. Jobs never re-wrote the book.
Well, yes and no. I mean certainly the personal computer didn't spring fully formed out of Jobs' parents garage, and was a part of a whole scene.
But you picked what are perhaps not the best examples. Using wiki (just to annoy you too :p) the IBM was described as a "portable computer", and the HP as a "programmable calculator". However, on the wiki page of "history of personal computers" it mentions what are perhaps better counter-examples - the Commodore PET and the TRS-80. However of those early computers it was the Apple II that dominated - up until IBM released the IBM PC.
And I have to say - Jobs did in fact re-write a lot of books. He re-wrote the book on interacting with computers. He re-wrote the book on cell phones. He re-wrote the book on animated movies. and he re-wrote the book on how you buy music.
And they all suck.
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2011, 01:05:53 PM
Nothing beats a tracksuit, as long as it's well-tailored.
What is the deal with your people and track suits anyway?
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 01:15:11 PM
Before Ritchie came alone, no one was even trying to write machine-codable-but-human-readable programming languages, as far as I can tell.
That's not entirely true. The point of a programming language is to translate a human readable format into a machine readable format. Even Assembly performs this function, although the human readable part is a bit of a stretch. Fortran from the 50s used English language words. C succeeded in combining legibility with a relatively small set of native commands and a format that permitted easy generation of native Assembly.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 09, 2011, 01:33:36 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2011, 01:05:53 PM
Nothing beats a tracksuit, as long as it's well-tailored.
What is the deal with your people and track suits anyway?
It's something that tough guys wore, so everyone who fancied himself a tough guy or wanted to look like one wore it as well. As to how that fashioned started in the first place, I do not know.
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2011, 01:17:38 PM
Another difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products. The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.
The people who use Jobs' products but not Ritchie's are people who use the iPod without ever downloading a song.
The people who use use Ritchie's products but not Jobs' are people who use the internet on any computers or phones bar Apples'.
Quote from: Barrister on November 09, 2011, 01:30:56 PM
And I have to say - Jobs did in fact re-write a lot of books. He re-wrote the book on interacting with computers. He re-wrote the book on cell phones. He re-wrote the book on animated movies. and he re-wrote the book on how you buy music.
Steve Jobs didn't re-write the book on interacting with computers, nor cell phones, nor animated movies. Those are all done pretty much the way they have been done before Jobs got involved in them. Music I am less sure of. It seems to me that PtP preceded single-compressed-track pay downloads, but I cannot swear to it. I don't much care for ganked music, if I am paying for it, so i don't follow that model.
Quote from: grumbler on November 09, 2011, 03:39:12 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2011, 01:17:38 PM
Another difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products. The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.
The people who use Jobs' products but not Ritchie's are people who use the iPod without ever downloading a song.
The people who use use Ritchie's products but not Jobs' are people who use the internet on any computers or phones bar Apples'.
The point that I was getting at is that Ritchie's product is far more removed from the end-user. If you download a song, you're not using C. You're using some process that can be traced back to C, but that's several layers removed from the end-user application.
This thread is such a good example of what the actual difference between Jobs and Ritchie actuall is - celebrity.
From an actual impact perspective, it simply is not even close. No rational person could possibly argue that Jobs had a greater impact on peoples lives than Ritchie. Hell, what Ritchie did impacts people who have never even heard of Steve Jobs - literally there is probably nobody on the planet excepting a few aboriginals holding out in some jungle somewhere who are not impacted every single day by products, services, and technology that is based on C and Unix.
Yet you still have people who are willing to argue for Jobs. Not because it makes any sense, but because he is a celebrity to them. It is pure cult of personality. They *want* Steve Jobs to be that important, so they are going to make the argument, no matter how silly it is, it is almost like an article of faith that their hero MUST be that important. Not because he is, but because he is a celebrity.
That is the difference. It is the ultimate triumph of what Jobs stood for, the importance of aesthetic over function.
Note that I am not arguing that Jobs did not do something incredible, of course he did. Nor am I even particularly upset that Ritchie will never get his due - it isn't like he is the first or even best example that those who actually do things often don't get the credit for it they deserve. I think the response to pointing out that Ritchie did vastly more that Jobs (NO WAY NOT POSSIBLE! ZOMG JOBS IS TEH BESTEST EVER HE INVENTED THE PC! YADDAYADDAYADDA) is a lot more interesting than the actual observation (which is rather obviously true to anyone with more than a cursory understanding of technology).
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 10:27:35 AM
This thread is such a good example of what the actual difference between Jobs and Ritchie actuall is - celebrity.
From an actual impact perspective, it simply is not even close. No rational person could possibly argue that Jobs had a greater impact on peoples lives than Ritchie. Hell, what Ritchie did impacts people who have never even heard of Steve Jobs - literally there is probably nobody on the planet excepting a few aboriginals holding out in some jungle somewhere who are not impacted every single day by products, services, and technology that is based on C and Unix.
Yet you still have people who are willing to argue for Jobs. Not because it makes any sense, but because he is a celebrity to them. It is pure cult of personality. They *want* Steve Jobs to be that important, so they are going to make the argument, no matter how silly it is, it is almost like an article of faith that their hero MUST be that important. Not because he is, but because he is a celebrity.
That is the difference. It is the ultimate triumph of what Jobs stood for, the importance of aesthetic over function.
Note that I am not arguing that Jobs did not do something incredible, of course he did. Nor am I even particularly upset that Ritchie will never get his due - it isn't like he is the first or even best example that those who actually do things often don't get the credit for it they deserve. I think the response to pointing out that Ritchie did vastly more that Jobs (NO WAY NOT POSSIBLE! ZOMG JOBS IS TEH BESTEST EVER HE INVENTED THE PC! YADDAYADDAYADDA) is a lot more interesting than the actual observation (which is rather obviously true to anyone with more than a cursory understanding of technology).
I dunno, I thought it was an interesting discussion that could go either way.
However if you're so convinced of your position that you immediately write off the other side as "not rational", then I guess there's no point in discussing it.
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had. Not because he invented a lot of things, but for what he popularized.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 10:31:24 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 10:27:35 AM
This thread is such a good example of what the actual difference between Jobs and Ritchie actuall is - celebrity.
From an actual impact perspective, it simply is not even close. No rational person could possibly argue that Jobs had a greater impact on peoples lives than Ritchie. Hell, what Ritchie did impacts people who have never even heard of Steve Jobs - literally there is probably nobody on the planet excepting a few aboriginals holding out in some jungle somewhere who are not impacted every single day by products, services, and technology that is based on C and Unix.
Yet you still have people who are willing to argue for Jobs. Not because it makes any sense, but because he is a celebrity to them. It is pure cult of personality. They *want* Steve Jobs to be that important, so they are going to make the argument, no matter how silly it is, it is almost like an article of faith that their hero MUST be that important. Not because he is, but because he is a celebrity.
That is the difference. It is the ultimate triumph of what Jobs stood for, the importance of aesthetic over function.
Note that I am not arguing that Jobs did not do something incredible, of course he did. Nor am I even particularly upset that Ritchie will never get his due - it isn't like he is the first or even best example that those who actually do things often don't get the credit for it they deserve. I think the response to pointing out that Ritchie did vastly more that Jobs (NO WAY NOT POSSIBLE! ZOMG JOBS IS TEH BESTEST EVER HE INVENTED THE PC! YADDAYADDAYADDA) is a lot more interesting than the actual observation (which is rather obviously true to anyone with more than a cursory understanding of technology).
I dunno, I thought it was an interesting discussion that could go either way.
However if you're so convinced of your position that you immediately write off the other side as "not rational", then I guess there's no point in discussing it.
Shrug, I don't think it could go either way at all. You are right - arguing this on its merits would be like arguing with someone that the earth is flat or that dinosaurs were fakes put in the ground by Jesus to confuse us.
The guy invented the language that every single neato toy that Jobs ever sold used. Every single packet you send over the internet runs over a router that uses the OS he invented written in the language he invented, and the packet itself is encoded by a program that runs C or a derivative of C. It is simply not comparable. You cannot even participate in the discussion without using the tools that Ritchie created the foundation for!
Watching the faithful desperately insist that it MUST be comparable is a hell of a lot more interesting than the comparison itself.
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had.
Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.
I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had.
Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.
I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.
Exactly.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had.
Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.
I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.
He was the CEO of two extremely successful companys (Apple which he co-founded, Pixar) and founded one moderately successful (Next). Those companys popularized many new things.
Name me ten equally or more successful business leaders that equalled his success in so many different fields.
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:44:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had.
Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.
I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.
He was the CEO of two extremely successful companys (Apple which he co-founded, Pixar) and founded one moderately successful (Next). Those companys popularized many new things.
Name me ten equally or more successful business leaders that equalled his success in so many different fields.
Forget it threviel. Berkut has spoken, and to think differently is the same as believing the earth is flat.
To think that Jobs had a greater impact on the world than the guy who invented C and Unix is simply preposterous.
I don't care how many successful companies he founded. Founding a successful company does not in and of itself imply a significant impact on people lives. It just means you founded a successful company.
And why would I need to name TEN equally or more successful businesspeople to argue that Ritchie, who founded no companies, has a greater impact than Jobs? That doesn't even make any sense, even if we were having that argument. Hell, if I could name ten, then that would be that at best Jobs is tenth, and yet they would still all be behind Ritchie in impact! The measure is not "how successful was this person at founding companies that made lots of money and popularized new things", and if it was, I could easily name ten anyway. Bill Gates would crush Jobs by that measure, for example.
Of course, Beeb immediately accepts that this is a perfectly valid argument, because it supports his hero. Another good example of how interesting it is that people will actually argue stuff that makes zero rational sense when it is about their celebrity.
Lets have a new debate:
Steve Jobs vs. Jesus Christ.
Note that Christ did not head any companies, did not invent a single product that people use, and the bible has pretty terrible usability. I think Jobs has this one in a landslide!
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 10:51:30 AM
To think that Jobs had a greater impact on the world than the guy who invented C and Unix is simply preposterous.
I don't care how many successful companies he founded. Founding a successful company does not in and of itself imply a significant impact on people lives. It just means you founded a successful company.
And why would I need to name TEN equally or more successful businesspeople to argue that Ritchie, who founded no companies, has a greater impact than Jobs? That doesn't even make any sense, even if we were having that argument. Hell, if I could name ten, then that would be that at best Jobs is tenth, and yet they would still all be behind Ritchie in impact! The measure is not "how successful was this person at founding companies that made lots of money and popularized new things", and if it was, I could easily name ten anyway. Bill Gates would crush Jobs by that measure, for example.
Steve Jobs was one of the best, if not the best, business leader of his generation. Ritchie was a very good scientist, one of the top one hundred in his generation perhaps. Hundreds if not thousands of scientists have influenced my life as much as Ritchie, but only Jobs built a phone I loved.
Well berkut is certainly on the top of his game today.
I don't know whetehr to :rolleyes: or :lol:
Coders vs non-coders argument.
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:55:41 AM
but only Jobs built a phone I loved.
:lmfao:
Oh wait you are serious.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2011, 10:58:33 AM
Coders vs non-coders argument.
I think someone just leveraged the iPhone as standalone proof of Jobs being more influential.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2011, 10:59:56 AM
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2011, 10:58:33 AM
Coders vs non-coders argument.
I think someone just leveraged the iPhone as standalone proof of Jobs being more influential.
I am without words. Steve Jobs for God-Emperor then.
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had. Not because he invented a lot of things, but for what he popularized.
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you honestly think that no one other than Steve Jobs could have popularized the mp3 player and the touch-screen phone? Shit, he wasn't even the first person to come up with the concept of marketing to hipster douchebags.
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:55:41 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 10:51:30 AM
To think that Jobs had a greater impact on the world than the guy who invented C and Unix is simply preposterous.
I don't care how many successful companies he founded. Founding a successful company does not in and of itself imply a significant impact on people lives. It just means you founded a successful company.
And why would I need to name TEN equally or more successful businesspeople to argue that Ritchie, who founded no companies, has a greater impact than Jobs? That doesn't even make any sense, even if we were having that argument. Hell, if I could name ten, then that would be that at best Jobs is tenth, and yet they would still all be behind Ritchie in impact! The measure is not "how successful was this person at founding companies that made lots of money and popularized new things", and if it was, I could easily name ten anyway. Bill Gates would crush Jobs by that measure, for example.
Steve Jobs was one of the best, if not the best, business leader of his generation. Ritchie was a very good scientist, one of the top one hundred in his generation perhaps. Hundreds if not thousands of scientists have influenced my life as much as Ritchie, but only Jobs built a phone I loved.
The debate is not who built the better phone though, it is who had a greater impact on people lives.
You simply do not notice the impact that Ritchie has on your life, yet it is there. Simply noting that the phone you love was made possible in multiple different ways by Ritchie ends the debate. It uses an OS that runs in whole or in part on C or its derivatives. The technology that lets you make a phone call runs on servers that are almost certainly unix. The apps you love all run across an internet made possible by software that is written in the language he invented, and on hardware whoes operating system he created.
You cannot send a single byte of data across the internet with that lovable phone without it going across or using technology at multiple levels that was enabled by the work that Ritchie did.
The fact that you don't know about Ritchie is fine - most people do not. He was not a celebrity, like Jobs. But it is hilarious to me that people, even once it is explained to them who Ritchie is and what he did, will STILL argue that their cult hero had a greater impact. He freaking invented C!
Which is why this is actually interesting - the power of the cult of personality to trump even the obvious is truly impressive.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 10, 2011, 10:58:33 AM
Coders vs non-coders argument.
To some extent that is true, but it is better said as "experts vs consumers" when it comes to the impact of technology.
Like I said, you cannot fault the Beebs of the world for not knowing who Ritchie was, hell he probably didn't even WANT them to know who he was. But it is funny that even when it is explained in laymans terms, they still insist that their cult hero was more important.
Quote from: Barrister on November 10, 2011, 10:56:29 AM
Well berkut is certainly on the top of his game today.
I don't know whetehr to :rolleyes: or :lol:
Try thinking a little bit instead, then you will agree with me that while Jobs was an impressive visionary and businessman, comparing his impact to the guy who invented the language and OS that every single person on the planet uses to do any kind of computing work anywhere (or very nearly so) is holding Jobs to a standard no mere businessman can ever meet.
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored. The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform. Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that. It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware. C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this. It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX. If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2011, 11:09:48 AM
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored. The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform. Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that. It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware. C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this. It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX. If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.
Yeah, but what about:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.penguinsix.com%2Fimages%2Fphone.png&hash=6fd2eda7eff74ecd1ea47c9065d44dd9d116f962)
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2011, 11:09:48 AM
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored. The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform. Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that. It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware. C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this. It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX. If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.
This is actually what I mean - you cannot expect someone not involved in the production of technology to understand this stuff before it is explained, so no surprise that Ritchie is not know, and people don't "get" why he was important.
But the fact that people will actually continue to argue that Jobs neato doo-dads make him more
influential even after it is explained is a MUCH more interesting phenomenon. It really is akin to watching religious people actually try to argue that the earth is 6000 years old after someone explains carbon dating to them.
Sure, they can throw their hands up and say "Why, you big meanie, you are such a jerk for dismissing the possibility that maybe it really is only 6000 years old!".
The power of faith is truly an amazing force.
Steve Jobs, Hero
a play in 1 part
[hero]
I love Steve Jobs!
He built all my wonderful toys!
He sacrificed himself for me!
I love Steve Jobs!
[greek chorus]
Steve Jobs, sent by the gods
Steve Jobs, savior of technology
Steve Jobs, ran 2 companies
Steve Jobs, best guy ever!
[hero]
I must confess, he built my phone
I love this little thing.
I must confess, he bought pixar
From George Lucas and though it was already really technologically innovative he made it super special and really the brainchild of this zen-like master and not Lasseter who pushed for animation and not high end computers!
Wow, oh wow, my life would be
Without technology
If not, If not for...
STEVE JOBS!
[greek chorus]
Steve Jobs, sent by the gods
Steve Jobs, savior of technology
Steve Jobs, ran 2 companies
Steve Jobs, best guy ever!
I think a good contrast and compare with Jobs would be Henry Ford. The home computer industry before Jobs sold his first computer was about the same as the auto industry before Ford sold his first car. What set Ford apart from people who built automobiles before him was that while they viewed autos as luxuries for the rich, he envisioned making them at a cost that the common man could afford. I don't think that applies to Jobs--other people making personal computers at the time he started Apple already hoped to make home computers a mass-market item. The difference between them and Jobs was that Jobs had the marketing acumen to pull it off. If not for Ford, I think we wouldn't have an America where most have at least 1 car; if not for Jobs, I think we'd still have an American where most homes have at least 1 computer, it just wouldn't have happened quite as fast (and only by a few years).
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 11:15:53 AM
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2011, 11:09:48 AM
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored. The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform. Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that. It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware. C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this. It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX. If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.
This is actually what I mean - you cannot expect someone not involved in the production of technology to understand this stuff before it is explained, so no surprise that Ritchie is not know, and people don't "get" why he was important.
But the fact that people will actually continue to argue that Jobs neato doo-dads make him more influential even after it is explained is a MUCH more interesting phenomenon. It really is akin to watching religious people actually try to argue that the earth is 6000 years old after someone explains carbon dating to them.
Sure, they can throw their hands up and say "Why, you big meanie, you are such a jerk for dismissing the possibility that maybe it really is only 6000 years old!".
The power of faith is truly an amazing force.
I run into that all the time my girlfriend's family. I've given up. Altho I'm thinking of editing the Bible since they believe anything written into it.
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 11:15:53 AM
Quote from: frunk on November 10, 2011, 11:09:48 AM
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
Something similar to C would have likely developed, and something UNIX like might have been explored. The difference was the combination of the two and the strong effort to make it multi-platform. Before this a new computer architecture meant a new OS and frequently a new language with new syntax on top of that. It was the Apple model, the computer company wanted to control the hardware and what could be run on the hardware. C and UNIX broke it out of that model, creating a consistency and portability in software development that wasn't possible before this. It indirectly allowed the rapid growth of the internet, since it was easy to get different types of computers to talk to one another using C and/or UNIX. If there had proliferated a variety of different coding schemes it would have slowed its growth considerably.
This is actually what I mean - you cannot expect someone not involved in the production of technology to understand this stuff before it is explained, so no surprise that Ritchie is not know, and people don't "get" why he was important.
But the fact that people will actually continue to argue that Jobs neato doo-dads make him more influential even after it is explained is a MUCH more interesting phenomenon. It really is akin to watching religious people actually try to argue that the earth is 6000 years old after someone explains carbon dating to them.
Sure, they can throw their hands up and say "Why, you big meanie, you are such a jerk for dismissing the possibility that maybe it really is only 6000 years old!".
The power of faith is truly an amazing force.
The people who think that Jobs is so great are akin to the student at Penn State who are rioting because JoePa got fired. It's all about the cult of personality you mentioned earlier. Sure, you can argue that Paterno didn't screw up to an extent that he deserved to be fired, but you can't rationally argue that he didn't screw up, or that firing him is some massive miscarriage of justice that makes rioting a reasonable response.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 11:25:15 AM
I think a good contrast and compare with Jobs would be Henry Ford. The home computer industry before Jobs sold his first computer was about the same as the auto industry before Ford sold his first car. What set Ford apart from people who built automobiles before him was that while they viewed autos as luxuries for the rich, he envisioned making them at a cost that the common man could afford. I don't think that applies to Jobs--other people making personal computers at the time he started Apple already hoped to make home computers a mass-market item. The difference between them and Jobs was that Jobs had the marketing acumen to pull it off. If not for Ford, I think we wouldn't have an America where most have at least 1 car; if not for Jobs, I think we'd still have an American where most homes have at least 1 computer, it just wouldn't have happened quite as fast (and only by a few years).
I don't think that Jobs is can take any credit for the computer as a mass market item. It was the PC that lead the charge.
For the record I am a bachelor in electrical engineering and use C daily, so my argument above might be a bit flawed when it comes to Ritchies impact on my own life.
What my argument boils down to is that Jobs, like Ford, made an existing technology accessible for many people. He was a visible person and via his leadership some amazing products that affect many peoples daily lives were created. In that way he was quite unique for his generation.
Ritchie was an engineer. An amazing engineer and scientist, but his actions only indirectly affected peoples lives, he was not a very visible person for regular people. In that he was like many other scientists, not very unique. Deserving of remembrance and respect for sure, but his visible impact for regular people is not near Jobs.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 11:25:15 AM
I think a good contrast and compare with Jobs would be Henry Ford. The home computer industry before Jobs sold his first computer was about the same as the auto industry before Ford sold his first car. What set Ford apart from people who built automobiles before him was that while they viewed autos as luxuries for the rich, he envisioned making them at a cost that the common man could afford. I don't think that applies to Jobs--other people making personal computers at the time he started Apple already hoped to make home computers a mass-market item. The difference between them and Jobs was that Jobs had the marketing acumen to pull it off. If not for Ford, I think we wouldn't have an America where most have at least 1 car; if not for Jobs, I think we'd still have an American where most homes have at least 1 computer, it just wouldn't have happened quite as fast (and only by a few years).
Not a good analogy IMO. Ford's greatest claim to fame is applying the assembly line process to car manufacturing.
Meh, seems a non-issue. Of course a brilliant popularizer is better known.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 10, 2011, 11:59:56 AM
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 11:25:15 AM
I think a good contrast and compare with Jobs would be Henry Ford. The home computer industry before Jobs sold his first computer was about the same as the auto industry before Ford sold his first car. What set Ford apart from people who built automobiles before him was that while they viewed autos as luxuries for the rich, he envisioned making them at a cost that the common man could afford. I don't think that applies to Jobs--other people making personal computers at the time he started Apple already hoped to make home computers a mass-market item. The difference between them and Jobs was that Jobs had the marketing acumen to pull it off. If not for Ford, I think we wouldn't have an America where most have at least 1 car; if not for Jobs, I think we'd still have an American where most homes have at least 1 computer, it just wouldn't have happened quite as fast (and only by a few years).
Not a good analogy IMO. Ford's greatest claim to fame is applying the assembly line process to car manufacturing.
It wasn't an analogy--it was a direct compare-and-contrast.
Edit: and it wasn't about fame, either--it was about influence on people's daily lives. I don't think anyone has argued that Ritchie is more famous than Jobs.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 12:02:44 PM
Meh, seems a non-issue. Of course a brilliant popularizer is better known.
But I don't think that anyone is arguing about that.
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2011, 12:53:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 12:02:44 PM
Meh, seems a non-issue. Of course a brilliant popularizer is better known.
But I don't think that anyone is arguing about that.
WTF are they arguing about. Which is more "influential"? Which
deserves to be better known?
The OP is essentially complaining that a brilliant popularizer is better known than a brilliant, but relatively publicity-shy, engineer and scientist. Which is approximately the equivalent of complaining that water is wet.
Quote from: DGuller on November 09, 2011, 04:23:39 PM
The point that I was getting at is that Ritchie's product is far more removed from the end-user. If you download a song, you're not using C. You're using some process that can be traced back to C, but that's several layers removed from the end-user application.
I understand that, and don't disagree. My point is simply that Ritchie's impact was greater even though, as you note, also more diffuse.
I wasn't arguing, I was trying to make this thread as lovely as Letwad's poetry thread.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 01:07:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on November 10, 2011, 12:53:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 12:02:44 PM
Meh, seems a non-issue. Of course a brilliant popularizer is better known.
But I don't think that anyone is arguing about that.
WTF are they arguing about. Which is more "influential"? Which deserves to be better known?
The OP is essentially complaining that a brilliant popularizer is better known than a brilliant, but relatively publicity-shy, engineer and scientist. Which is approximately the equivalent of complaining that water is wet.
Jos is a twit though - so hardly surprising. I believe they were talking about influential after DGul's unfortunate comment:
QuoteAnother difference is that lots of people use Jobs's products. The only people who use that other guy's products are programmers or very advanced users.
Quote from: PDH on November 10, 2011, 01:14:58 PM
I wasn't arguing, I was trying to make this thread as lovely as Letwad's poetry thread.
Unless this thread has Confederate soldiers in a bukkake party with My Little Pony, it will never rise to that level.
Quote from: Malthus on November 10, 2011, 01:26:13 PM
Quote from: PDH on November 10, 2011, 01:14:58 PM
I wasn't arguing, I was trying to make this thread as lovely as Letwad's poetry thread.
Unless this thread has Confederate soldiers in a bukkake party with My Little Pony, it will never rise to that level.
Jubal Early Fellates a HorseJubal Early was an aggressive general
Who was feeling quite feral
So he went to a farm of course
and fellated a horse
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:44:40 AM
Quote from: Berkut on November 10, 2011, 10:39:17 AM
Quote from: Threviel on November 10, 2011, 10:34:44 AM
My opinion is that if Ritchie hadn't been born some other language than C would have been the basis for some other similar operating system than Unix. What he did was great, good science and engineering, but that is all. There are many like him.
If Jobs hadn't been born there is a lot of things we wouldn't have had.
Right, because all those people who developed clever interfaces could never have done so without Steve Jobs to do it for them.
I can understand the argument of "IF not Ritchie, then someone else...". I cannot understand a rational argument that the very same would not apply to Jobs though. The market is pretty good at advancing good ideas to the front, especially when it comes to retail consumer products.
He was the CEO of two extremely successful companys (Apple which he co-founded, Pixar) and founded one moderately successful (Next). Those companys popularized many new things.
Name me ten equally or more successful business leaders that equalled his success in so many different fields.
Wait, what? Steve Jobs has a hand in Next? The clothes shop?
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2011, 06:45:05 PMWait, what? Steve Jobs has a hand in Next? The clothes shop?
No.
That was my way of saying 'what on Earth is Next?'
Quote from: Tyr on November 10, 2011, 06:57:29 PM
That was my way of saying 'what on Earth is Next?'
:hmm: You need to come up with a better way of saying things.
I think the artist vs. scientist comparison works for Jobs and Ritchie.
It's like arguing who had a greater impact: Johann Guttenberg or William Shakespeare?
Without the printing press, most likely the ideas and works of Shakespeare would have not survived. And Shakespeare stole ideas, probably plagiarized some of his works, was by contemporary standards possibly a hack and outshone more talented contemporaries, like Marlowe. Yet, Shakespeare had a much greater direct impact on our culture - and you could argue that if Guttenberg was hit by a stray bullet at the age of 15, someone else would have eventually come up with a similar idea - would another Shakespeare arise if the original was killed is debatable however.
I guess we can agree that Ritchie (or Guttenberg) had a greater impact on science and technology, but Jobs (and Shakespeare) had a greater impact on culture.
Well, the problem with arguing that Jobs has had a huge influence on most people's daily lives is that most people, even those that have computers, don't have Apple products. You have to argue that the PC revolution wouldn't have happened without Jobs and Apple, and I don't agree with that assessment.
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Well, the problem with arguing that Jobs has had a huge influence on most people's daily lives is that most people, even those that have computers, don't have Apple products. You have to argue that the PC revolution wouldn't have happened without Jobs and Apple, and I don't agree with that assessment.
What about smartphones and tablets? He also popularized these now ubiquitous products.
Remember Nokia? They used to be dominant 10 years ago. Now, they are almost a goner.
Nope, I don't remember Nokia.
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2011, 07:18:26 PM
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Well, the problem with arguing that Jobs has had a huge influence on most people's daily lives is that most people, even those that have computers, don't have Apple products. You have to argue that the PC revolution wouldn't have happened without Jobs and Apple, and I don't agree with that assessment.
What about smartphones and tablets? He also popularized these now ubiquitous products.
Remember Nokia? They used to be dominant 10 years ago. Now, they are almost a goner.
Smartphones existed before Apple got into that market, as did tablets.
Jobs was a genius at making existing products better. That's it, though. His innovations were all just making something that existed already just that little bit better.
Quote from: Martinus on November 10, 2011, 07:12:27 PM
I think the artist vs. scientist comparison works for Jobs and Ritchie.
It's like arguing who had a greater impact: Johann Guttenberg or William Shakespeare?
Without the printing press, most likely the ideas and works of Shakespeare would have not survived. And Shakespeare stole ideas, probably plagiarized some of his works, was by contemporary standards possibly a hack and outshone more talented contemporaries, like Marlowe. Yet, Shakespeare had a much greater direct impact on our culture - and you could argue that if Guttenberg was hit by a stray bullet at the age of 15, someone else would have eventually come up with a similar idea - would another Shakespeare arise if the original was killed is debatable however.
I guess we can agree that Ritchie (or Guttenberg) had a greater impact on science and technology, but Jobs (and Shakespeare) had a greater impact on culture.
Actually, it is like arguing whether marti is responsible for the introduction of really stupid analogies, or whether his keyboard manufacturer is responsible because the keyboard allows Marty to expose the world of Languish to those stupid analogies.
Jobs is to Shakespeare as the shitsmears on Monkeybutt's toilet paper is to Picasso's Dora Maar Au Chat.
Quotethe shitsmears on Monkeybutt's toilet paper is to Picasso's Dora Maar Au Chat
:wub:
Yeah, it is another point of data in my fascination with cult worship that the cult members would equate Jobs to fucking Shakespeare.
On thinking about it, probably the closest historical counterpart to Jobs would be George Eastman.
How so?
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Well, the problem with arguing that Jobs has had a huge influence on most people's daily lives is that most people, even those that have computers, don't have Apple products. You have to argue that the PC revolution wouldn't have happened without Jobs and Apple, and I don't agree with that assessment.
No, you only have to argue that it happened differently with Jobs. No one is arguing that we wouldn't have computers without Jobs.
Quote from: Threviel on November 11, 2011, 12:54:06 AM
Quote from: dps on November 10, 2011, 07:17:15 PM
Well, the problem with arguing that Jobs has had a huge influence on most people's daily lives is that most people, even those that have computers, don't have Apple products. You have to argue that the PC revolution wouldn't have happened without Jobs and Apple, and I don't agree with that assessment.
No, you only have to argue that it happened differently with Jobs. No one is arguing that we wouldn't have computers without Jobs.
It would have happened even more differently without Bill Gates, if you are using that as your measure, since you've apparently abandoned the "Ran successful business" and "built my phone" arguments. :P
Quote from: grumbler on November 10, 2011, 07:59:44 PM
Jobs is to Shakespeare as the shitsmears on Monkeybutt's toilet paper is to Picasso's Dora Maar Au Chat.
WTF? You really bought the whole Jobs myth didn't you?
Waaaa, stop crying.
The world is made of losers and winners.