Bootstrap ancestry
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Richard Tobin on 18 Jun 2010 17:15 The newsreader I am using now was compiled several years ago on a PPC Mac, using gcc. That gcc was no doubt compiled by Apple using another copy of gcc they had compiled. A few generations back, they probably cross-compiled gcc, perhaps on a 68000 Mac or Next computer. A few generations before that, gcc was compiled on a Vax using the BSD C compiler. That C compiler descended from Richie's original C compiler - I'm not sure whether that was written in B or assmebler. If you keep going back, you will eventually come to a program made, not begotten, entered using switches with nothing but hardware behind them. I could have followed many branches instead of just the compilers - the editors, assemblers, linkers and operating system used along the way, not to mention the computers they ran on. Every program has a branching and converging bootstrap ancestry. How many long-lost programs still have running descendants? How many parentless programs is the entire ecosystem of modern software descended from? -- Richard
From: Graeme on 18 Jun 2010 17:26 In message <hvgnm7$17aq$1(a)pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk> richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote: [snip] > How many parentless programs > is the entire ecosystem of modern software descended from? > Surely Windows is the ultimate parentless programme? I've heard many people say it's a right b-----d. -- Graeme Wall My genealogy website <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/genealogy/>
From: D.M. Procida on 18 Jun 2010 17:44 Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > I could have followed many branches instead of just the compilers - > the editors, assemblers, linkers and operating system used along the > way, not to mention the computers they ran on. And hardware too. How far do you have to go back to find electronic hardware that wasn't itself designed or built using computer-controlled devices? > Every program has a branching and converging bootstrap ancestry. How many > long-lost programs still have running descendants? How many parentless > programs is the entire ecosystem of modern software descended from? This is a bit like something I puzzle over to myself sometimes. Suppose that we lost all our technology, right down to our hammers and nails, and had to start again with stone hand-tools (but still had our knowledge, language, writing and so on). How long would it take to get back where we are now, in technological terms? Would we even take the same route? I imagine that the key transforming technology would be one which provided some kind of power on-tap. Steam is probably the simplest. But maybe I am just being a bit unimaginative. You can do the same thing with computer technology; if it - but nothing else - were all wiped out, where would we go from there? Daniele
From: Richard Kettlewell on 18 Jun 2010 18:44 richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes: > The newsreader I am using now was compiled several years ago on a PPC > Mac, using gcc. That gcc was no doubt compiled by Apple using another > copy of gcc they had compiled. A few generations back, they probably > cross-compiled gcc, perhaps on a 68000 Mac or Next computer. A few > generations before that, gcc was compiled on a Vax using the BSD C > compiler. That C compiler descended from Richie's original C compiler > - I'm not sure whether that was written in B or assmebler. If you > keep going back, you will eventually come to a program made, not > begotten, entered using switches with nothing but hardware behind > them. > > I could have followed many branches instead of just the compilers - > the editors, assemblers, linkers and operating system used along the > way, not to mention the computers they ran on. Every program has a > branching and converging bootstrap ancestry. How many long-lost > programs still have running descendants? How many parentless programs > is the entire ecosystem of modern software descended from? Now re-read "reflections on trusting trust" l-) -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
From: Pd on 19 Jun 2010 03:36
D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > This is a bit like something I puzzle over to myself sometimes. I play that game when I can't sleep at night. > Suppose that we lost all our technology, right down to our hammers and > nails, and had to start again with stone hand-tools (but still had our > knowledge, language, writing and so on). How long would it take to get > back where we are now, in technological terms? Given that most of our technology was invented in the last 150 years, and before that it was mostly knowledge and principles which were being accumulated, I'd say less than a lifetime. > Would we even take the same route? I think it's arguably certain we would not. > You can do the same thing with computer technology; if it - but nothing > else - were all wiped out, where would we go from there? That's a conceivable possibility, with severe solar storms or a spasm of EMPs. -- Pd |