Aug 132015
 

Elmer pointed out that despite popular belief Ada Lovelace was not the first programmer, but the first developer evangelist.  Historians agree and have shown that Charles Babbage wrote all the programs that Ada wrote three to seven years earlier.  What Ada actually did was work with Babbage on writing up notes about his work.  Those notes are where she gets her undeserved reputation. 

What Ada did was act like Babbage’s developer evangelist.  Since Ada has a programming language named after her for being a developer evangelist, I’m sure someone will lower the bar even further and name a programming language after Adria Richards.  (Of course, the Adria programming language will never work, get some programmers fired, and never be used again.)

  2 Responses to “Ada Lovelace Was The First Developer Evangelist”

  1. Thanks for the TPS report. From your description I believe I have programmed in Adria on a few projects.

  2. When feminists are confronted with the fact that almost all great thinkers and innovators have been men, they start mentioning some counterexamples
    that seek to undermine this conclusion. But the conclusion was based on the observation that the vast majority of them are men, not that there haven’t been
    any important women at all. Furthermore, they usually also only mention marginal figures that didn’t really contribute much. And for some reason
    you never hear them mention this actually great woman : Emmy Noether.
    She was responsible for one of the most, if not the most, important result of theoretical (classical) physics : Noether’s theorem.
    In a nutshell : You have those conserved quantities in physics : Momentum, angular momentum and energy. Noether’s theorem shows that those conserved
    quantities appear because of the invariance of a physical system with respect to position, orientation and time.
    And so it actually explains why conserved quantities appear for mathematical reasons, assuming only the invariance of a physical system.
    (The further question would be : Why is a physical system invariant? Because of the reduction of change to no-change?)
    I consider her one of the greats, to be mentioned alongside Einstein and Newton. So why is she so impopular with the feminists?
    Maybe an anecdote might help to explain this : When she taught mathematics at a university the guys loved her. Her students were so
    devoted to her they were called ‘Noether’s boys’. The women however were way less charmed. They kept criticising her appearance, her hair and
    the way she used her handkerchief etc. In short, guys loved her because of her mathematical abilities and women kept criticising her looks.
    Not that she was unattractive, she just considered appearance less important than her mathematical work.
    This was a truly great woman, who actually taught Einstein something about math! Yet she cannot be used as a figurehead for the feminists because that would
    undermine too many feminist dogmas. And so you can see that feminism is also opposed to greatness in women, preferring to empower the idiots to the
    detriment of the true intellectuals.

Leave a Comment. (Remember the comment policy is in force.)

Translate »
%d bloggers like this: