TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Origin of the Stored Program Concept (1985) [pdf]

45 点作者 jpelecanos超过 7 年前

4 条评论

CalChris超过 7 年前
In modern usage, the von Neumann machine is unfortunately poorly defined. You won&#x27;t find it defined in Hennessy and Patterson (although they won the von Neumann award); it&#x27;s discussed but not defined even in appendix L.<p>There are strong similarities between the Princeton IAS, UNIVAC 1, IBM 701 and even the CDC 1604 (Cray&#x27;s transistor version). In fact, I&#x27;d say that the von Neumann reports [0] are the first &#x27;architecture&#x27; with apologies to IBM. Sort of kind of. Don&#x27;t chop my head off. But that similarity is <i>not</i> what people are thinking when they say von Neumann machine. It should be but it isn&#x27;t.<p>But you have to really read the writing to get a sense of what a von Neumann machine actually is and reading those reports are damn hard. <i>The Computer As Von Neumann Planned It</i> [1] is fairly readable.<p>As an example, the von Neumann machine word had a binary digit (bit) describing whether a minor cycle (word) was a standard number (data) or an order (instruction, really two instructions); section 15.1 of the EDVAC report if you want to look it up. So it&#x27;s kind&#x27;ve tagged. Lot other weirdnesses and cool ideas.<p><pre><code> Minor cycles fall into two classes: Standard numbers and orders. These two categories should be distinguished from each other by their respective first units i.e. by the value of i0. We agree accordingly that i0 = 0 is to designate a standard number, and i0 = 1 an order. </code></pre> Anyways, these days whenever someone says von Neumann they generally gloss over this blizzard of detail which they probably were never taught and just mean scalar. It&#x27;s doubtful whether they are even distinguishing Harvard and Princeton architectures. They just mean something basic, fundamental, abstract. But they don&#x27;t really mean von Neumann.<p>This all was the basis of patent lawsuit mentioned in the article. Over the years, there have been many histories written. <i>Reconsidering the Stored-Program Concept</i> [2] is pretty good.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;library.ias.edu&#x2F;ecp" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;library.ias.edu&#x2F;ecp</a><p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cva.stanford.edu&#x2F;classes&#x2F;cs99s&#x2F;papers&#x2F;godfrey-computer-as-von-neumann-planned-it.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;cva.stanford.edu&#x2F;classes&#x2F;cs99s&#x2F;papers&#x2F;godfrey-compute...</a><p>[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.markpriestley.net&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;ReconsideringTheStoredProgramConcept.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.markpriestley.net&#x2F;pdfs&#x2F;ReconsideringTheStoredProg...</a>
评论 #15377579 未加载
ajarmst超过 7 年前
I think this is conflating the stored program design and the Von Neumann machine. The storage of both programs and memory in the same address space was novel, but other options for storing programs exist (see especially Harvard Architecture). You can even make a case that &quot;stored program&quot; as an idea predates electronics and computers. Both Leibniz and Babbage explored the idea of a programmable computing device, and the Jacquard loom used ordered sets of cards that most people would recognize as a program.
评论 #15376552 未加载
评论 #15376518 未加载
chubot超过 7 年前
The book The Dream Machine [1] touches on the controversy and patent litigation around the &quot;von Neumann&quot; machine.<p>IIRC a colleague of von Neumann circulated a technical report by him, where he was summarizing the work of others along with his own, with regard to the stored program architecture. But his name was the only one on it, and the inventors of other machines got pissed off.<p>There was a rush to patent the idea, and patent litigation. But the idea was never patented, I think because of prior art.<p>It&#x27;s interesting to think about what would happen if the idea was patented... I mean it is a significant idea and probably deserves a patent under the law. But would that have set computing history back by a decade or two?<p>The Dream Machine also goes into some other &quot;inside baseball&quot;... e.g. the relationship between Turing and Church, etc.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Dream-Machine-Licklider-Revolution-Computing&#x2F;dp&#x2F;014200135X" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Dream-Machine-Licklider-Revolution-Co...</a>
munin超过 7 年前
Through no fault of its own, this is a very American-centric view of early computing. I&#x27;m pretty sure that at the time this was written, the story of COLOSSUS was still highly classified by the British government. It has since been declassified, and you might read about it in this book [1].<p>1: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0199578141" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;dp&#x2F;0199578141</a>
评论 #15378373 未加载