08/01/2022 strategic-culture.org  6 min 🇬🇧 #200321

The First Programmer Was Not a Woman

Babbage, lovelace and the biggest lie in tech

By Marcus DEVONSHIRE

It is a near-universal claim that the world's first computer programmer was Ada Lovelace. She is referred to as the "enchantress of numbers", a mathematical genius, a visionary and a fundamental contributor to the field of computing. The second Tuesday of October is "Ada Lovelace day" - an event to celebrate women's achievements in STEM[4]. There is even a programming language named after her.

Ada lovelace was not the first programmer, nor was she any kind of genius and she contributed almost nothing to the field of computing. Almost all of the claims about her are wrong and together they constitute the biggest lies told in the field of tech.

Charles Babbage originated the concept of mechanical programmable computers. He named his most ambitious design the "analytical engine". Due to funding issues and the manufacturing limitations of the time, he didn't get to create it, but his plans were sound. In 1833, Ada Lovelace met Babbage at a party. She was seventeen and fascinated with Babbage's work and they became friends. As the daughter of Lord Byron, who was a sordid character of the time, Ada was born a celebrity. Attention, privilege, talent and attractiveness came together to form very high self-regard.

"The more I study, the more insatiable do I feel my genius for it to be."
Ada Lovelace,[1]

In 1842, a paper was published, in French, by Luigi Menabrea - it was based upon a lecture Babbage had given in Turin, two years prior, where he outlined the analytical engine's operation and presented diagrams of some of Babbage's programs that could run on it 6. Ada was approached to translate the paper into English and Babbage suggested that she add some notes of her own. She also included Babbage's sample programs from his Turin lecture and, through haranguing Babbage for help, modified the program's complexity.[5]

"I want to put in something about Bernouilli's Numbers, in one of my Notes, as an example of how an implicit function may be worked out by the engine, without having been worked out by human head & hands first. Give me the necessary data and formulae."

Letter from Ada to Babbage,[7][8]

That's it. Ada Lovelace is called the first computer programmer because she translated a paper written by one man, about another man's work, using example programs written by that man from two years prior that she modified with a lot of his help. All of the fuss about Ada being the first programmer is about this translated paper. The claims made about her range from establishment media puff-pieces[2][3] which claim she was "the first programmer", to more subtle claims that she was the "first published programmer" or that she "wrote the first published program".

It's ridiculous to even consider that Charles Babbage, who conceived of the analytical engine long before a teenage Ada was told about it, would not know how to program it or would not have written his own programs for it. Claims that Ada "wrote" the program in the published paper are incorrect. The program was written by Babbage in Turin, two years prior. Claims that she is the "first published programmer" or that the program is "hers" are more insidious. If you wrote a formula which you presented in a lecture, which would then be included in a translated paper by someone else - would that person deserve the credit for the formula? I have a hard time thinking that if such a case were made before a modern peer-review board, that they would conclude anything other than that the original author of a work is the one who deserved the credit. She was not the first published programmer because the program she published was not her work.

People believe what they want to believe, and computing has been a thorn in the side of feminists for a long time now. Special attention is given to "women in tech" because it's a cushy position for people of higher ability than normal. It's for the smart, the creative, the logically minded, and it must hurt quite a bit to see one's own sex so under-represented. Since the game of modern feminism is about beating men, there is a great amount of cognitive dissonance in their brain over clearly lagging behind in many important fields. I could state it no better than they do themselves:

Reading through most accounts of history, we could be forgiven for assuming that women were not the warriors, the great thinkers nor the pioneering scientists who shaped and changed our world.

That men alone birthed art, churned out literature and fiercely challenged the status quo, while women functioned only within the domestic realm. But though the canon has perpetually erased the contribution of women and their work has been systematically discredited, devalued and derided, their light has doggedly broken through the cracks.

In short, the massive achievement of the male sex in creating so much of the modern world that serves us all, is a con. Women are just as good - nay, even better maybe, as they were the first to do it in your male field. Our lack of achievement isn't our fault at all - it's the result of a conspiracy to keep us down. My failures aren't my failures, it's just the (literal) man keeping me down! It's the baying call of the loser, and we see far too much of it in our world.

When it comes to controlling the minds of the masses, and therefore the fate of a nation, a myth or a narrative is more powerful than anything else. It supersedes all thought, and when implanted strongly enough, may control that person's thinking until death. We all see the futility of disabusing people of their notions sometimes, and simply must wait out the clock until the mass of people who have a competing narrative outnumbers them. Increasingly, I look at society as the result of a dominant collective who believes in a certain way "just because". Slow and persistent subversion replaces those values with each generation - changes the nature of that society. People believe what they were taught to, very few people rationalise why they believe the things they do. This results in a series of "what about"-isms, knee-jerk responses to points to disengage the mind from considering painful thoughts.

The prevalence of men in physics? - What about Marie Curie?

American exceptionalism? - What about slavery?

The moral quality of British culture? - What about opium wars?

What about the logical male mind, of the clear contribution of male logic to society in the form of technology? What about Ada Lovelace?

That is why they lie.

References

[1]  The cogwheel brain, Doron Swade
[2] Ada Lovelace Day:  We should never forget the first computer programmer
[3] Who was Ada Lovelace?  bbc.co.uk
[4]  Ada Lovelace Day
[5]  What Did Ada Lovelace's Program Actually Do?
[6] Charles Babbage left a computer program in Turin in 1840.  Here it is.
[7] Luigi Menabrea Publishes the First Computer Programs, Designed for Babbage's Analytical Engine.
[8]  Excerpts from the letters of Ada Byron, Lady Lovelace

 unz.com

 strategic-culture.org

 Commenter