Talk:List of pioneers in computer science

message: Much thanks to Dzonatas.  This section needed to be broken out from the main Computer Science topic.  
--Somewherepurple
I instituted a merge, but I'm not familiar enough with these people: J.C.R. Licklider, Jay Forrester, Norbert Wiener, Vannevar Bush to add them into the table correctly.  I hope someone gets to that sometime. Radagast83 05:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Posts

message: I think an external link to the CHM is germane.  It's a non-profit 501(c)(3) org, covering the subject of this Wikipedia article.  Board of Trustees looks reputable.  Any opinions that say the CHM should not be linked in?  --  Iterator12n  Talk  22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue was not whether or not it should be linked in, the appropriateness of the link content itself was not the issue.  As stated in the edit summary, the issue was it was added by a CHM staff member who over the past four or so months was spamming links to their own site across wikipedia pages.  In fact, that account's only contributions were adding links to his own site across Wikipedia.  That is violation of WP:EL and WP:COI.  That is why all of that person's edits were reverted, as is routinely done for such violations.  And looking further at this article, following Wikipedia's EL policy, truthfully those other links in the EL should be moved to supporting references in the list as well.  I.E. content from those sites being used as references, if those sites truly contain material beneficial material for the article.  This article contains zero references at the moment.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Will respond later, GTG. -- Iterator12n  Talk  03:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Back.  My first reaction is, So what if a good link is added for the wrong reason, it still is a good link.  However, my second reaction is, You're right regarding the lack of references - particulalry, by what authority are these people listed as of pioneers?  Without references, the list constitutes a work of original research, violating WP:OR.  Conclusion: The article should be improved by providing for each entry a pointer to the authority that judges the particular person to be a pioneer.  In that way, the CHM may come back as one of the authorities in the subject matter.  With a little bit of time later (and if nobody else before me does the job) I'll go through the list and provide for each entry the source(s) that justify the entry. Will delete any entries without a recognized authority behind it.  --  Iterator12n  Talk  02:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Computer History Museum 

message: What a good system to be able to click on a button to re-order the entries in the table.--TedColes (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Order of entries

message: Names I would like to suggest to discuss for inclusion in 'computer pioneers'.
Charles Babbage  originated the concept of a digital programmable computer, the analytical engine in 1837.
Ada Lovelace regarded as the first to recognise the full potential of Charles Babbage's analytical engine and the first computer programmer for the work done crating the first program intended to execute on the analytical engine.
Jay W. Forrester   coincident-current magnetic core memory, project leader of Whirlwind
Freddie Williams and Tom Kilburn   "Williams tube" memory
Dudley Allen Buck inventor of cryotron, content addressable memory, Ferroelectric ram    (see my talk page re: my interest in this subject)
Marcian Hoff  Intel 4004 
Federico Faggin Intel 4004 (leader of intel 4004 project)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.173.127.190 (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely some names in there that should be in the list. Noel (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

text: , fair point. I'm open to this. Zazpot (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

text: For Philo Farnsworth et al you would need a source stating they were pioneers in computer science. The list has a pretty straight forward WP:LISTCRITERIA - "pioneer in computer science" or someone who created, developed, or theorized computers. Farnsworth does not seem to fit any of that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names for consideration 

message: Marvin Minski was born in 1927, not much of an achievement.  I changed Minski's date to the founding of the  AI Lab/Project MAC, which is what the table mentions.  Likewise, George Boole was fifteen years old in 1830.  I changed the date to the publication dates of his works on logic. 75.15.115.245 (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Boole and Minski 

message: I'm not sure that Bryan Cantrill should be on this list; I don't believe that DTrace is as notable/important to computer science as the rest of the achievements listed. I'm removing him from the list.
Blelbach (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bryan Cantrill (Dtrace) 

message: I don't think that al-Khwārizmī qualifies as a pioneer in computer science. Computer science relies on a number of earlier developments and isn't alone in using algorithms. --TedColes (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think al-Khwārizmī has an indirect influence on computer science for his concept of the algorithm. I'm not saying that he made big contributions, however, algorithms are still important in computer science for solving problems. Also his introduction to the Hindu-Arabic numeral system (developed by Indian mathematicians), which introduces "0" and "1" to the western world has made a significant influence. You may refute against the second point, however, I think as long as we have a reliable source, that should suffice (which it has). Ninmacer20 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  al-Khwārizmī a computer scientist? 

message: I suggest adding the following people to the list:
Gordon E. Moore developed Moore's Law which empirically showed the increasing speed of computation technology (1965)
Rolf Landauer derived Landauer's principle, giving the thermodynamic limitations of computing systems (1961)
Gene Amdahl developed parallel scaling and Amdahl's law which shows the practical limits of parallelizing a given problem (1967)
John L. Gustafson developed weak scaling and Gustafson's law which helped to precipitate the parallel supercomputing revolution (1988)
— Rememberlands (talk) 18:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Computational Limitations and Parallel Programing 

message: It currently reads
The term "algorithm" is derived from the algorism, the technique of performing arithmetic with Hindu-Arabic numerals developed by al-Khwarizmi. Both "algorithm" and "algorism" are derived from the Latinized forms of al-Khwarizmi's name, Algoritmi and Algorismi, respectively. His Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing (Arabic: الكتاب المختصر في حساب الجبر والمقابلة‎‎ al-Kitāb al-mukhtaṣar fī ḥisāb al-jabr wal-muqābala) is a mathematical book written approximately 830 CE. The word Algebra is also derived from the title of his book and it is believed to be the first book on the subject. The notion of zero is found for the first time in this book. However, it is believed he had learned the notion of zero from Indians through his travels to India. With zero, he was able to invent the systematic Indo-Arabic number (decimal) system. The word algorithm was given in Europe to a method he called "Attarigolkharazmi" (Akharazmi's Method) for taking square root of whole numbers in decimal system. The method is based on first identity ((a+b)^2 = a^2 + b^2, where a= 10^n, n>1). The word "method" was dropped in time and the word algorithm referred to this method of taking square root. As more elaborate ways of doing complex things, in a mechanized way, through mathematical reasoning were discovered/invented, they were all called algorithms. Certain algorithms, such as deriving the greatest common divisor existed way before Alkharazmi (Greek time). However, Europeans were so impressed by Kharazmi's method that his name replaced the world "method".
I addition to being inordinately long, I think it has some errors. That "identity" is false, as a=100, b=2 gives (100+2)^2 = (102)^2 = 1040 while 100^2 + 2^2 = 1004.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.236.221.138 (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in al-Khwārizmī Section 

message: Sure she is accomplished but she is NOT a pioneer in computer science.
152.131.14.9 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheryl Sandberg? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of pioneers in computer science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629182810/http://www.shef.ac.uk/marcoms/eview/articles58/robot.html to http://www.shef.ac.uk/marcoms/eview/articles58/robot.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://throwbackentertainment.com/press/terakura.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: - I'd love to hear your explanation for the relevant of Janese Swanson, Carla Meninsky, and Roberta Williams to this list. While generating computer game content with a LFSR is a nice trick, use of such generation techniques is not groundbreaking (e.g. the predating Rogue (video game)) - and is definitely not pioneering in computer science. Being a professional in computing tagged a pioneer by someone does not a pioneer in computer science make.Icewhiz (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of computer game programmers to computer science list 

message: Under See Also, I added a link to the relevant IEEE Computer Pioneer Award. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEEE Computer Pioneer Award 

message: I've ordered the book The Computer Pioneers: The Making of the Modern Computer.  It was published in 1986, but it should be a good reference for pioneers.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I got the book.  I hoped for a chapter on each pioneer, but there isn't one.  I could get them out of the index.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 

message: Would this list be more informative if items were listed chronologically? One point in favor of it is that readers would then be able to trace the history of the innovations while at the same time familiarizing themselves with the individuals. Or maybe a separate alphabetical list of names-only after the chart. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already sortable that way, but needs work in this regard. The date formatting is inconsistent. This can probably be fixed by moving second, third, etc. accomplishments for the same person to their own cells with their own date cells, or at very least using a consistent multi-line format with the same cell.  I have no idea what "1972 1973" is supposed to convey, and it fails MOS:DATE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronological instead of alphabetical

message: I cannot take the page seriously when it starts jumping from year 830 directly to 1944.
Bohan (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: History Hole

message: I removed this section from the table (more correctly, commented it out):
|-
| 2007
| Nick McKeown, Scott Shenkar, Martin Casado
| Created Software Defined Networking
I'm not sure if it was inadvertently added or added as a joke. If it was genuinely added then I think it should be discussed first since there does not appear to be anything pioneering "XXX as a service", with XXX=Networking. I also fear it will lead to additional taint, like including Software Defined Radios or Cloud Computing as pioneering milestones. Jeffrey Walton  (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Software Defined Networking

message: This list still has problems; it's too long, and includes too many people who did not have a significant impact.
First, the title of the list ('pioneers in computer science') would to my mind mostly rule out anyone before the 1930s (modulo Babbage, Lovelace and a few others) since none of them really had a significant CS impact.
Another big one is a seeming attempt to add more women just to... have more women in the list. This has produced such absurdities as listing Elizabeth Feinler and not Jon Postel (Jake is a wonderful person, but her accomplishments don't, I think, merit inclusion on this list, whereas Jon's might); listing Sally Floyd, but not Van Jacobson (although Van did important stuff, but not to the point of being worthy of being in this list), etc. (If you don't understand why I have paired them, you need to study them, and what they worked on, a bit more.) There are women who absolutely belong (starting with Grace Hopper and Lynn Conway, although it's not clear which class to credit the latter to), but trying to add women just to have more females is just as pernicious as adding (or removing) people because of their skin colour. Historical/etc circumstances have left an un-balanced list, but... it is what it is. What's next, adding more female musicians to a list of jazz greats to make it more balanced? (To show just how pernicious balancing can be, how about adding more white musicians? Nonsense, of course.)
And several notable names that IMO are missing: Christopher Strachey, Jay W. Forrester (for Whirlwind, the first real-time computer, and core memory), Alonzo Church, Ken Olsen (minicomputers were a major step from mainframes to personal computers), maybe Max Newman (for Baby). I'm sure a search through lists of Turing Award winners, etc would turn up more. Noel (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List still has problems 

message: What is the logic of the dates/years next to inventors? I'm sorry I'm new to Wikipedia's editing functions (and hence community), so I won't edit anything in the article. But I read the list like the year should correspond to the invention(s). And e.g. Herman Hollerith filed his patent in 1889, whereas in the list the dates 1961, 1969, and 1978 are mentioned. Please help me understand the logic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Konstantinweiss (talk • contribs) 14:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, there is no logic now. The dates have been messed up by this edit which transferred the dates which had been attributed to Tony Hoare to Hollerith, when Hoare was removed from the list. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  Fixed now; see below. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates within the list 

message: In this edit, entries were wrongly grouped, screwing up large numbers of years.  Can someone suggest a process to fix? Dicklyon (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year errors 

message: Why Jonh Postel is not present in this list? --Rubinetto (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Postel? 

message: "Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the presumed pseudonymous person or persons who developed bitcoin"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Nakamoto)
The table header is labelled "Person" while this 'Nakamoto' does not uniformly fall under that categorization, being a name possibly representing a group of people.
It may be likened to the credit given to the complete works of Shakespeare when said credit has not been proven to be accurate.
The suggested edits would not necessarily entail removal of the name altogether, however either re-labeling the table header to something more general such as "Name", or adding a subscript note next to the specific name such as Satoshi Nakamoto[Pseudonym]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertACJefferson (talk • contribs) 14:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satoshi Nakamoto not to be used to represent an individual person 

message: Shouldn't Dan Ingalls be in this list. He was a pioneer of object-oriented programming and invented bitblit, the basis for bitmapped graphics.Bill (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition

message: I just added Bertrand Meyer for [[design by contract]. In my own career this was one of my top ten seminal texts. There's not much new here you won't find in Dijkstra (at least by implication), but Dijkstra's wisdom was often brusque and acerbic, whereas Meyer's modular distillation could be usefully applied by an entire development team the very next day. 
Others may differ. Feel free to redact if the consensus is otherwise. My vote is complete in having made this edit in the first place. I will not return to plead this again. — MaxEnt 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bertrand Meyer 

message: [Ed: This is actually my continuation from the comment above, but it seemed to need its own heading, so divided out in the same edit.]
 
As far as Bryan Cantrill goes, whose name I spotted as I scanned the talk page for the general tone of engagement, there is absolutely a category of blue collar pioneers where he properly belongs, along with guys like Walter Bright. The problem with blue collar pioneers is that they are best appreciated from within the trench rather than from above the trench, and you'd never achieve a contained consensus in opening the door to such on a list such as this one. dtrace in my books is pretty close to making the white collar list: it's an entire systems facility for gaining the upper hand on complex concurrent systems, where the dysfunction is embedded in complex interdependencies in the time domain in a way that no other logging facility can usefully twist by the tail. 
For a complex, heavily threaded system such as ZFS, even when you have all your guards and interlocks rigorously correct (no mean feat to begin with) they can conspire in unforeseen ways to produce outrageous latency spikes that some reasonable use case simply can't abide. 
Lacking a facility as sharp as dtrace, by this point—having merely achieved semantic rigour in data retention—you're dead in the water, short of playing the long game of Whack a Mole, where each effort to eliminate one bizarre latency introduces one or more different bizarre latencies. 
So you have a system that's semantically correct, all algorithms and data structures are scale compliant for at least the first six or nine magnitudes, and the code base is thoroughly concurrent over reasonably granular atomic operations. You be done now? No. You still need dtrace to iron out egregious misbehaviour in the latency domain. In my view this is actually a cryptocollar problem. From the nearby access road, it definitely looks like a blue collar problem. Only the further you press into the bush, the whiter it gets. 
What to do when everyone else presumes it's a blue problem, but you actually know in your heart of hearts that it's finally a white problem deep when encountered deep in the forest glade? A white paper is not going to cut it with your deluded peers. Far more useful to advance your case is to hand your peers a working proton pack. Make no mistake, dtrace was a magnum opus of the first order in the art form of working proton packs, as you would know if you have ever been close to ground zero to actually notice what it finally buys you. — MaxEnt 16:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Blue-collar pioneers

message: It says you can press on some arrows to reorganize the table of pioneers. The function doesn't display on mobile. 
Can someone correct that for easier viewing in chronological order? 81.235.37.233 (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The system of reordering the table