Article/media is a bit sensationalistic in describing this as an early computer. The programming language (a list of letters) doesn't support arbitrary logic, branching and doesn't have a notion of memory. In that way, it's like an intricate player piano or HTML. Still a marvel of mechanical engineering but conceptually far from what we consider a computer today.
Well, no I think you're just wrong. Most academics would think of this as an early proto computer or programmable device. It is an automata. Just because there isn't a YouTube vid go some hipster showing you how to make a blog engine with it just change that.
But I guess we can play the Sarah Palin game blaming the "media." :)
Does anybody know about software for simulation of this kind of mechanical devices? Is it even possible, for example to simulate all parts of mechanical clock? Add 3D printing to that and ... :-)
Most Computer Aided Design suites integrate mechanical simulation too. They can compute loads, stresses and so forth too. They even simulate gases and liquids etc, so they can 'run' combustion engines and so on virtually.
There are some really neat videos on the Autodesk and Solidworks websites, and doubtless there are other CAD suites doing this too.
BBC Four had a documentary on it a month ago [1], that I watched an hour ago. It's on TPB (but I don't think I can link to it here?). Make sure you have energy when you start watching this, the presenter is not the most enthusiastic.
This is a machine that works on fixed length strings with fixed alphabet, and accepts all strings. Thus it's not a computer. Of course, the side effect of execution is amazing.
If you are impressed with intricate work, than you'd be more impressed with virtually any piece of software written today. 6000 parts? Programs routinely have that many object instances - and usually far more. Indeed, many programs have that many classes. When you include runtime dependencies like the OS or database, you're average application is several orders of magnitude more intricate and complex.
That is not to say that The Writer is not a unique accomplishment. It truly is - to succeed in creating something that complex in physical objects, and without the helping constraints that modern programers labor under is remarkable and laudable. But if you are a fan of intricate work, you can find much better examples in modern software (not to mention CPU design).
This sort of comment that makes me uncomfortable. I don't understand the insistence that everything you do has to be harder than everything else, or that this doesn't have any meaning because modern engineering is harder.
You see, you should be bragging that modern programming is easier. The whole point of evolving engineering is to make things easier -- what would be modern science and engineering good for if we had to build things this complicated from scratch?
People (rational people, that is) don't choose a framework or method of doing things because it's hard; in fact, quite the opposite, they obviously go for the easier ones! The merit should be -- look what I can achieve with such beautiful simplicity. It is trivial to conceive a harder way of doing almost everything.
In fact, if you look at the automata shown here, almost anyone with a tiny bit of programming knowledge and some hardware knowledge could build something similar with an arduino and some stepper motors.
No you're just wrong, it's sort of sad. This is far more impressive than so some crud application. It almost seems silly to need to defend that position. Sure, if you factor in the total sum of work and thought needed to make SnapChat possible, you have something impressive ... But that doesn't reasonably explain the complexity of building SnapChat, in fact part of the argument is that it took people building the thing you childishly deride to enable such a monstrosity in the first place.
The level of technical sophistication of this engineer is much higher than your typical hipster programmer, by far.
I'm just not convinced software is that impressive, I've seen 12 year olds write 'complex software' (at least to me), they didn't sure need a lifetime of knowledge and skill to do that.
Hello world might look complex on the wire when you think about the bits, but you didn't build any of those complexities yourself. This guy also didn't have the Internet to copy/paste from.
The difference perhaps lies in the amount of people who it took to create this interesting artifact: 2, quite a bit less than your examples.
Of course, you could easily argue that Fabrice Bellard is the software equivalent of a master watchmaker, and some of his creations would certainly be on par with this!
[+] [-] rian|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aedocw|12 years ago|reply
This is an EXTREMELY clever and complicated printer.
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|12 years ago|reply
But I guess we can play the Sarah Palin game blaming the "media." :)
[+] [-] Nikolas0|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] superuser2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bausson|12 years ago|reply
I wonder if this mechanism was the inspiration for that episode, seems close enough.
[+] [-] plumeria|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichailP|12 years ago|reply
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_graham_cumming_the_greatest_ma...
Does anybody know about software for simulation of this kind of mechanical devices? Is it even possible, for example to simulate all parts of mechanical clock? Add 3D printing to that and ... :-)
[+] [-] willvarfar|12 years ago|reply
There are some really neat videos on the Autodesk and Solidworks websites, and doubtless there are other CAD suites doing this too.
[+] [-] fuzzix|12 years ago|reply
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2406693/
Absolute Zero and Light Fantastic stick out in my mind as particularly good.
[+] [-] moocowduckquack|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tobylane|12 years ago|reply
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0229pbp
[+] [-] jmpe|12 years ago|reply
http://hackaday.com/2013/10/29/retrotechtacular-automata/
[+] [-] nzp|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] v-yadli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] v-yadli|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] javajosh|12 years ago|reply
That is not to say that The Writer is not a unique accomplishment. It truly is - to succeed in creating something that complex in physical objects, and without the helping constraints that modern programers labor under is remarkable and laudable. But if you are a fan of intricate work, you can find much better examples in modern software (not to mention CPU design).
EDIT: down-vote me all you want, assholes.
[+] [-] darkmighty|12 years ago|reply
You see, you should be bragging that modern programming is easier. The whole point of evolving engineering is to make things easier -- what would be modern science and engineering good for if we had to build things this complicated from scratch?
People (rational people, that is) don't choose a framework or method of doing things because it's hard; in fact, quite the opposite, they obviously go for the easier ones! The merit should be -- look what I can achieve with such beautiful simplicity. It is trivial to conceive a harder way of doing almost everything.
In fact, if you look at the automata shown here, almost anyone with a tiny bit of programming knowledge and some hardware knowledge could build something similar with an arduino and some stepper motors.
[+] [-] dinkumthinkum|12 years ago|reply
The level of technical sophistication of this engineer is much higher than your typical hipster programmer, by far.
[+] [-] ddunkin|12 years ago|reply
Hello world might look complex on the wire when you think about the bits, but you didn't build any of those complexities yourself. This guy also didn't have the Internet to copy/paste from.
[+] [-] girvo|12 years ago|reply
Of course, you could easily argue that Fabrice Bellard is the software equivalent of a master watchmaker, and some of his creations would certainly be on par with this!