[ih] Internet-history Digest, Vol 62, Issue 32

[John Shoch]

Noel,

Your concern about the technical content of computer history puts you in
good company -- with Don Knuth.

--In 2021 the CACM published a transcript of a talk Don had given 7 years
before: "Let’s Not Dumb Down the History of Computer Science." From the
CACM's introduction:
"On May 7, 2014, Don Knuth delivered that year's Kailath Lecture at
Stanford University to a packed auditorium. In it he decried the absence of
technical content from the histories of computer science being written, and
he made an impassioned plea for historians of computer science to get back
on track, as the historians of mathematics have always been."

https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/lets-not-dumb-down-the-history-of-computer-science/

--I had the good fortune to be at that lecture 10 years ago, which is
available on Youtube:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAXdDEQveKw
     [There is an amusing introduction by John Hennesey.]

--A year after the talk, in 2015, the CACM ran a response from Thomas
Haigh, arguing the other side:
"In this column I will be looking at the changing relationship between the
discipline of computer science and the growing body of scholarly work on
the history of computing, beginning with a recent plea made by renowned
computer scientist Donald Knuth." ...
"Computing is much bigger than computer science, and so the history of
computing is much bigger than the history of computer science. Yet Knuth
treated Campbell-Kelly’s book on the business history of the software
industry (accurately subtitled “a history of the software industry”) and
all the rest of the history of computing as part of “the history of
computer science.” ...
"To call such work “dumbed down” history of computer science, rather than
smart history of many other things, is to misunderstand both the intentions
and the accomplishments of its authors."
     https://cacm.acm.org/opinion/the-tears-of-donald-knuth/

I commend both articles to you.

John

PS:  Personally, I tend to come down on the Haigh side of the discussion.
"History" can take many forms when looking at any subject area -- political
history, economic history, business history, social history, technical
history, architectural history, etc.
An example:  some of you may know that Robert Garner is undertaking a
prodigious effort to dig into the technical evolution of the Ethernet (he's
looking at original board designs, simulation equations, timing issues,
etc.  Yet that still leaves room for different historical work on the
techno/political battles of the standardization process (Ethernet vs. token
ring, Xerox/Dec/Intel vs. IBM, IEEE vs. ECMA in Europe, etc.).  I think we
need both.
[Full disclosure:  I served for about two decades on the Board of the
Computer History Museum, which informed my broader view of the
opportunity.  The technical history of computing (and networking) is
important, but will probably serve a narrower audience.]