Xref: utzoo comp.sys.misc:1523 comp.arch:5319
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!nyser!njin!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.misc,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Clippinger-modified ENIAC and June 48 Manchester Mark I (was: Info...)
Message-ID: 
Date: 30 Jun 88 08:56:25 GMT
References: <198@marque.mu.edu>  <3255@thorin.cs.unc.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 47

In article <3255@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, omondi@unc.cs.unc.edu (Amos Omondi) writes:
> In article , webber@porthos.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes:
< < ...
< < On the second point, I have so far seen no references to an exact day
< < in 1948 when the ``first ENIAC'' program was run.  Note that the ENIAC
<                   ^^^
< This is probably understandable since someone appears to have remembered 
< these modifications only years after ...

Hmmm.  I am not sure quite what you mean to be implying there.  The
modifications were quite ``real.''  For example, there was a report
authored by ``Anonymous'' entitled ``Description and Use of the ENIAC
Converter Code'' reviewed in 1950 (vol 4, pp. 150-151 of Mathematical
Tables and Aids to Computation) -- the report itself, consisting of 23
mimeographed pages, was dated Nov 1949 according to the review.  

Also of interest was the second meeting of the ACM, which was held in
Dec 11 & 12 of 1947.  At this meeting, two papers were presented
whose titles suggest a relevance to this discussion (alas, I have not
seen these papers anywhere): ``General Principles of Coding, with
application to the ENIAC'' by J. von Neumann and ``Adaptation of the
ENIAC to von Neumann's coding technique'' by R. F. Clippinger.  The
meeting was held at BRL. [I wonder if they drifted north to the Moore
School Library.]

< < was already a working computer when it was converted and it is claimed
< < that its design specifically invited this conversion (i.e., it was an
< < ``easy'' upgrade).  So it may be that the ENIAC ran a stored program
< < before or after tha Manchester Mark I did in 1948.  However, in the
< 
< How is it that neither Burks, Eckert, nor Mauchly, who surely ought to 
< know a thing or two about the ENIAC do not appear to have said anything 
< about these modifications or this 1948 date ?  

Well, for one thing, they seem to not have been directly involved in
the modification which was made after the ENIAC had moved to BRL.
However, they do figure in the question of who gets credit for what.
Basically, I think the easiest way to understand the ENIAC is to
view it not as a computer but rather as a computational laboratory.
There are many interesting ways it could be ``put together'' to
solve a given problem.  The system was quite flexible was clearly
intended to be modified.  However, the designers of this marvelous
machine seem to have abandoned this approach to computing before
the ENIAC was even finished -- focussing instead on what is now
commonly referred to as the ``von Neumann'' architecture.

--- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)