It has been written, I think by Dijkstra himself, that he has a (mid 20th century) European perspective on computing: that computers are prohibitively expensive and so we must go as far as we can with math before hitting he hardware. This is contrasted to the American view that hardware is free. Obviously the American view has won out over time.
I've never heard of this difference in perspective between Europa and the US. Do you have anything to support that?
But anyway, this was written in 1988. As someone who was already a programmer at the time, I can assure computers weren't viewed as "prohibitively expensive" in Europe.
Maybe this difference existed ten years earlier, but not in '88.
I thought it had more to do with European CS departments often being considered part of math while American CS departments were often considered part of EE. That would account for some difference in the habit of buying hardware in the beginning (say 60s and 70s): EE already had to buy a lot of that while the math department did not, so it was a new thing for a department that generally did not have high capital expenses.
But I don't think the ability to buy hardware is as relevant as the different mindset between mathematicians, who focus on more abstract problems, and engineers, who focus on more concrete problems, especially today when hardware is cheap. Being an American-trained computer science and spending some time working in Europe, it definitely felt like more emphasis was placed on formalism vs. engineering.
I think it may also be related to a historical experimental/mathematical difference. Edison (US) admired Lord Kelvin (UK), who believed in constructing physical models of theories. He thought you had to be able to see it. Whereas Laplace and other French (EU) mathematicians favoured a symbolic mathematical approach.
Lord Kelvin had a minor win, in that he refuted one of Laplace's mathematical constructs with a model. Edison also had some wins. But of course, Einstein had the biggest win of all, using a symbolic approach (he began with clear visualizations which he later found mathematics for. There were other factors, but once he switched to a purely mathematical approach, he had no more breakthroughs...)
I personally wonder if this US/EU distinction is somehow be related to having all the land already being owned vs. land available.
PS: I'm taking this from biographies of Edison and Einstein, so please correct me if I'm wrong or omitted something relevant.
Comments
It has been written, I think by Dijkstra himself, that he has a (mid 20th century) European perspective on computing: that computers are prohibitively expensive and so we must go as far as we can with math before hitting he hardware. This is contrasted to the American view that hardware is free. Obviously the American view has won out over time.
I've never heard of this difference in perspective between Europa and the US. Do you have anything to support that?
But anyway, this was written in 1988. As someone who was already a programmer at the time, I can assure computers weren't viewed as "prohibitively expensive" in Europe.
Maybe this difference existed ten years earlier, but not in '88.
I thought it had more to do with European CS departments often being considered part of math while American CS departments were often considered part of EE. That would account for some difference in the habit of buying hardware in the beginning (say 60s and 70s): EE already had to buy a lot of that while the math department did not, so it was a new thing for a department that generally did not have high capital expenses.
But I don't think the ability to buy hardware is as relevant as the different mindset between mathematicians, who focus on more abstract problems, and engineers, who focus on more concrete problems, especially today when hardware is cheap. Being an American-trained computer science and spending some time working in Europe, it definitely felt like more emphasis was placed on formalism vs. engineering.
I think it may also be related to a historical experimental/mathematical difference. Edison (US) admired Lord Kelvin (UK), who believed in constructing physical models of theories. He thought you had to be able to see it. Whereas Laplace and other French (EU) mathematicians favoured a symbolic mathematical approach.
Lord Kelvin had a minor win, in that he refuted one of Laplace's mathematical constructs with a model. Edison also had some wins. But of course, Einstein had the biggest win of all, using a symbolic approach (he began with clear visualizations which he later found mathematics for. There were other factors, but once he switched to a purely mathematical approach, he had no more breakthroughs...)
I personally wonder if this US/EU distinction is somehow be related to having all the land already being owned vs. land available.
PS: I'm taking this from biographies of Edison and Einstein, so please correct me if I'm wrong or omitted something relevant.
Sounds like the familiar contrast between continental rationalism and Anglo-American empiricism.